Skip to main content

View Diary: A Calculation: How Many Trillions of Dollars of Environmental Damage Will IGCC Coal Cost? (48 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I love your poll. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If I take it, no matter what I choose means I'm in favor of some degree of environmental destruction.

    That's really special of you.  That was your intent, wasn't it?

    Also, just a quick question:  where do you work?

    Just curious.

    I'm on the wrong side of humanity.

    by Page van der Linden on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 05:28:42 PM PST

    •  Is it your position that forms of energy exist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that do not involve environmental destruction?

      If so, you are hardly alone, but you are wrong.

      I could put "zero" in my poll, but I would only be encouraging magical thinking, which it is my intention to avoid.

      Zero environmental destruction is not possible and has never been possible.   It is well known that preliterate people, sometimes called "cavemen," had a profound effect on their environment, even though they were 100% dependent on renewable energy.   Of course, they could get away with it better than we can, since their population numbered only a few million.

      All forms of energy involve environmental destruction, the popular and the unpopular alike.   Many popular ideas about energy are more destructive inasmuch as they create a willingness to do nothing about risk minization.  For instance, many people use their notions about sequestration to pretend that coal can be risk minimized and many people say the word "solar" in a talismanic fashion that increases the popular will to accept the status quo by default.

      I do not accept the status quo.

      And let's be clear, risk minimization and not risk elimination is what energy policy should be about, if it is to be serious.  Climate change is real and it is urgent.   We don't have the time to appeal to what could be or what might be or to wallow in the impressions that are consistent with what we want to hear.   We must act now.

      Where I work or whether I work has no bearing on the truth or falsity of what I say and I'm not going there.

      •  Original Tags: (0+ / 0-)

        nuclear power, Faust, Mephisto, wind, solar, coal, IGCC, external costs, energy, climate change.

        Get a draft horse. Use less. Stay home more. Don't have children.

        •  Recently someone attached "Patrick Moore's (0+ / 0-)

          Sockpuppet" as a tag to my entries.

          At first I was pissed, but now I think it was fairly amusing.  In fact I added to one of my recent entries myself.   I discussed that tag in my diary entry called Power, Plutonium and Pi.

        •  While I am (0+ / 0-)

          far from "convinced" by NNadir, these discussions fascinate me and I truly value the contribution to the community and discussion.

          From your comment, I think that I pick up a view that NNadir objects to energy efficiency and a holistic approach to energy issues.  While a massive supporter of nuclear power (and one of the more eloquent that I've ever encountered), I don't see NNadir objecting to energy efficiency and changed usage patterns.  My suspicion is that NNadir might question how effective these will be in turning away from the path of global warming devastation -- and views nuclear power as the only path to avert total disaster.

          I am not convinced about the last but admire / value NNadir's efforts to convince us of that.

          By the way, NNadir -- with my appreciation for your writing, I am hoping that you are working to throw these essays together to make a book. I would buy it -- even if I might expend some red ink on it.

          The Energy Conversation: Learn - Connect - Share - Participate: For a new dialogue on Energy issues.

          by A Siegel on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 11:54:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site