[milkkid291]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363622,00.html


Wow, 45 trillion dollars.

[name goes here]

Copy and paste the text is better.

Basically... no, or at least I don't think so. Europe (not including Eng) has switched to nuclear energy. They've switched from landfill to waste incineration. It didn't slow down their economy one bit. Obv countries like Eng and USA who already own a lot of oil have less incentive to switch - but the technology to massively reduce the co2 output is also available.

[milkkid291]

Originally Posted by name goes here

Copy and paste the text is better.

Basically... no, or at least I don't think so. Europe (not including Eng) has switched to nuclear energy. They've switched from landfill to waste incineration. It didn't slow down their economy one bit. Obv countries like Eng and USA who already own a lot of oil have less incentive to switch - but the technology to massively reduce the co2 output is also available.

One click isn't too bad, is it?


I am all for switching to alternative energy, but the whole point of this thread was is it really possible to downsize C02 levels in the atmosphere by half? 45 TRILLION dollars is a huge sum of money and I just don't think it is possible in such a short amount of time to throw 45 trillion dollars by the year 2050 to cut C02 levels by half.

They will definately be reduced by then, rather or not nations across the world use this plan or others, but 45 trillion dollars is too much.

I really don't see why people think that if we drill for more oil, that we still aren't developing and researching new alternative fuels.

While the U.S. can't drill more oil in the Gulf since the 80's, we got countries like India and China starting to set up negotiations to drill oil in the Gulf.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news...cuba/index.htm


Oil prices are getting to be ridiculous and we need to drill more of our own oil to reduce these prices while we are developing alternative fuels.

[name goes here]

Developing is the wrong word - Nuclear for power. The vast majority of co2 production is by industry not people driving cars. If you can get industry to switch, then cars is far less of an issue. And there is an electric car.

As to removing CO2 already in the atmosphere, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12727
But the main issue is the who would profit from it, nobody can make money getting the co2 out the air. The main hope for the enviroment is that oil as a fuel is priced out of business practicality AND isn't replaced by another carbon based fuel.

Another consideration - whose profits suffer from global warming. Essentially until the point were we're all doomed - then its just an issue for the poor.