So you won't have objections to paying said tax as it wont just be levied against corporations?
World Meteorological Organization: Carbon Dioxide hits 400ppm, 'Time is running out'
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
So you won't have objections to paying said tax as it wont just be levied against corporations?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Ideally the half that survives of course!
This requires the sort of international cooperation that could not appear outside of science fiction. Could you see Cameron, Merkel, Putin, Abe or Obama showing the sort of leadership needed?
No I wouldn't (mind paying it indirectly that is - the tax would be at source then passed on I'd expect), but then again I have a social conscience so may be in the minority. It would just be a case of paying the actual cost of a given item/service instead of forcing the following generations to pay it on my behalf.
It's almost a form of intergenerational tyranny, our lifestyle being subsidised by a generation yet to be who have no representation.
As we all would, but waiting until it requires that kind of solution may result in not being in that preferred split.
Or course not, our political class are self-serving ineffective incompetent fools - completely in the pocket of big business who have even less appetite to enact the kind of social changes required.
that better world comes at huge cost to us though..
like all the green energy crap pushing up electricity prices because of stupid wind farms etc
we need more nuclear
If you have Netflix watch a documentary called Pandoras Promise. It's a very good doc about how nuclear activitist used Chernobyl and Three Mile Island to sway public and political opinion on a whole bunch of new reactors being built in the USA. Based solely on completely inaccurate and false information.
It's scarily enlightening on what we could have now if three mile island hadn't have happened. There is for instance a complete, and totally working nuclear reactor in American that has never been turned on due to public outcry.
It also has a very interest part in it, that say green energy is actually worse than nuclear, due to it not fulfilling the requirements needed and is therefor backed up by gas power stations.
France are the only people that have got it right.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1992193/
Last edited:
I'll give it a watch, thanks for the pointer.
I wouldn't have expected protests to make much difference, unless the public perception was backed by something more significant (ie, the interests of other fuel companies outside of nuclear - if that was the case I'd attribute it to that, not some hippies).
Energy security - so we wouldn't heed to rely on other countries
Energy price, wouldn't have to rely on instable countries and a massively fluctuating market
General pollution - wouldn't you want to live in a clean air city. Where you aren't breathing crape in, where water isn't polluted etc.
Lots of reasons to change and they are all achieved at the same time.
Germany will be laughing, they have such foresight. buy mist of the worlds solar panel. they will have cheap, plentiful, stable power. While the rest of us squabble over fossils fuels pumped I'm from unstable countries and through instable countries. While Germanys economy will rocket upwards, thanks to their foresight, as well as their general health increasing.
Except nuclear power is more expensive than many renewables and produces significant CO2 itself.
wind generation is much cheaper than nuclear!
Maybe your post was meant to make fun at this article? I'm going to assume that you agree with the arguments in it though.
A few dissenting scientists is meaningless. Roughly 97% of scientific papers on the subject agree that climate change is happening. Imagine that article with 97 quotes from scientists arguing for the existence of climate change and 3 against and you'll have a more realistic idea of the situation.
Nuclear would be a good stop gap to reduce CO2 emissions and we should be investing in it rather than fracking.
But not more than renewable supposedly. Renewables major disadvantage at the moment is there isn't enough to sustain a population, so it needs to be subsided by something else when it isn't windy or sunny.
That has been up till now, Gas.
Do you have any info on them producing Co2 except via them being built etc. I can't find any info saying that it's produced as a byproduct.
What an ill informed comment specifically in relation to wind farms.
Wind farms are not stupid. They are currently the most cost-efficient way of producing 'carbon free' energy. The main reasons why people don't like them are 1) they don't like the look of them. 2) We, the taxpayers have to pay the windfarm owners (energy companies) when the wind is too strong and we have surplus energy, and it's very costly.
Listen to the energy storage podcast from the 13th of May: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/costearth/all
Currently energy storage technologies are lagging behind renewables tech, and we need to change that. They should go hand in hand.
As for nuclear, well, it's clean and relatively safe these days but it's not cheap. The biggest problem is the infrastructure legacy left by nuclear. A lot of my friends work at Sellafield so I have an appreciation of how extensive it is.
My view is that nuclear, renewables and fracking all have a place in our energy mix. There isn't currently a 'magic bullet' for energy generation, and there won't be for a long time. I therefore think we should refrain from this absolutist, political rhetoric. This is why I won't vote for UKIP or Greens because their policies on energy are very extreme.
Last edited:
A large part of the CO2 production from Nuclear is in the extraction and preparation of Uranium, as well as the construction. The combination is more CO2 output than an equivalent power output from rewnewables.
There isn't enough green energy ATM, as you said, but the shortfall can be reduced with more much more green energy while still having some gas and nuclear power station as a a core provider.
I'm not against nuclear, but it is much more expensive than most forms of green energy, still produces significant CO2, the nuclear waste is not easy to deal with, and still depends on a finite resource.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,331
- Location
- Orpington.
Great idea, and use recycled bottles too.