Perhaps things aren't as dire as some--indeed many, knowlegeable, qualified people--have predicted.

Yet, I'll wager you can't make a convincing argument that making an effort to control the amt of CO2 (or any other pollutant) into the atmosphere isn't a good thing!

Sure, the ice caps may not all melt tomorrow, and we probably won't have to wade to work--at least not in our lifetime.

But I say LESS bad shit in the air, water, etc. is ALWAYS a good thing!

CO2 is *not* "bad shit." It is a vital gas in the production of sugars and carbohydrates in plants, especially edible grains. Reduce the amount in the atmosphere significantly, and you will see famine.

I hope I don't live to see the day oxyegen is redefined as a pollutant. We're already repeatedly defining our fellow human beings as wastes of flesh that need to be eliminated to save the world... wouldn't surprise me if we start committing mass smotherings soon, to cleasne Gaia of the human "cancer."

It would be so ironic if the method used looked like a black rainbow...

Mark - I think part of the issue that we're seeing here is what appears to be a pseudo censorship of dissenting voices coupled with basic economics (you get money if you're doing climate research supporting global warming, maybe not so much if you aren't).

A key issue here is that the system is incredibly complex and we're attempting to predict how it's going to react when we don't really understand it. On top of that, groups are attempting to assign blame and push for legislation that could be very costly to enact.

All of that being said, I agree with limiting pollutants as much as possible. It just makes sense (both fiscal and personal).

Tat - I'm thinking that Mark knows this, but is pointing towards excessive CO2 production which would be considered polluting. Just like excessive dihydrogen oxide can be bad, so can excessive carbon dioxide.

Personally, my vote continues to be for more wind, geothermal, and nuclear (in the form of fast breeder reactors, which appear to be highly efficient) power - which would allow electric cars (or fuel cells, potentially) to become more prevalent. To me, this would be great for urban settings while potentially drastically reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Two birds with one stone, I say!

Wind, like solar, is never going to work. The only reason we can get power pumped into our houses 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, is because oil, gas, and coal generators can be switched on and off whenever needed, allowing them to supply extra power or shut it off whenever a few thousand people happen to turn their lights on at the same time. Even hooking up a wind or solar plant, buffered by the best electric storage technology money can buy, into any new or existing grid will force everyone on that grid to get used to rolling blackouts if the wind dies down for too long, or there's too much fog... or worse, to wait in the dark for all the blown transformers stationed in the boondocks to be replaced if there's too much wind or sun for too long, to where even shutting down all the controllable generators can't compensate for the oversupply.

Only in a society where people can be forced to run all their lights and power equipment at strictly monitored levels whenever it's necessary to make up for an unexpected energy surplus would solar or wind work for power generation. Or if the government kept a huge power waster constantly running at controllable levels. But you'd better believe someone would be paying for the power the waster would be burning off, and it wouldn't be the politicians.

And I quote:

Personally, my vote continues to be for more wind, geothermal, and nuclear (in the form of fast breeder reactors, which appear to be highly efficient) power - which would allow electric cars (or fuel cells, potentially) to become more prevalent. To me, this would be great for urban settings while potentially drastically reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Also, note that I didn't include solar energy as it appears to be too inefficient at this point, along with methods of capturing it being particularly expensive and space intensive.

Now, to address the wind power issue: Certain areas have a pretty consistent breeze, making wind power a very smart bet. These tend to include the tops of hills and mountains and coastlines. Put the wind powered generators here as they'll be supplemental during the day. At night, they still get some form of wind and might even be able to make up more of the power needs.

Geothermal still seems to have private and public uses.

The aforementioned FBR nuclear power would end up being the primary source. Coal and the like would still be around (and they're decently clean burning now) until replaced or out classed by the others.

None of what I said has a "magic bullet" quality. They need to be included in a comprehensive energy package that focuses on sustainable power output without limiting consumer choices and market forces unduly.

Still doesn't solve the problem, unless you can make the wind blow at exactly the same speed all the time. Nuclear would work, but is still and probably always will be socially unacceptable, thanks to being made the staple of monster flicks as far back as the 50s.

Nope - the wind can blow at different speeds. You just have to figure out the average speed and design the prop to pitch appropriately to compensate. That way you're always running as close to optimal as possible.

On top of that, wind isn't meant to be a primary source, just a supplemental force. As long as it provides a measure of power that's at a greater value than the cost to get the power, it's a win. Maybe it only supplies 2-3% of our needs - that's still a significant chunk that we got at essentially zero cost.

As for nuclear, that's part of pushing a comprehensive and well-thought out energy policy. At this point, nuclear is one of our only real options. It's still probably a stopgap until we can find something better, but it's there.

Actually, it's my understanding that the latest nuclear reactor designs are extremely good, and nuclear power is the only alternative power source that can compete in cost, output, and efficiency with fossil fuels. Go over to wikipedia and look up pebble bed reactors and lithium-cooled reactors for more info.

It's also my understanding that attitudes toward nuclear power are undergoing a sea change. These new designs are inherently fail-safe. The pebble bed reactor quickly reaches an easily survivable equilibrium if the coolant system fails, and the lithium-cooled systems self-seal in the event of leaks. IMO, we're only a PR campaign away from having a viable nuclear power industry again.

Fine, whatever. I still think a "supplemental" source that frequently makes the primary source explode at unpredictable intervals isn't worth it, but what do I know? I'm just a redneck from the sticks.
I still worry that we're going to end up reducing the CO2 content of the atmosphere to the point where all our staple grains start providing no more nutrition than chewing grass.

Okay - I'm confused. How would wind power or geothermal power make the primary source explode? I believe most large windpower generators change pitch to keep fairly constant outputs going. If the wind becomes too strong to operate reliably, I believe the pitch out completely.

I'm not calling you unintelligent or anything, I'm just not seeing how this could be a bad thing. And from the stats provided, I don't think we'll have any real impact on overall levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems to rise constantly without any regard to our input.

The same way coal, oil, and gas plants occasionally do: by failing to precisely match power output to power consumption. Even the power plants whose output is under complete human control occasionally nuke the grid, when the power consumption has a sudden drop or spike that the people working the generators don't compensate for quickly enough; that results in citywide and even statewide blackouts until the damaged equipment can be replaced.

But how often does this truly occur? I remember the one in NYC and the northern US, but that's the only major one in the last several years. And source seems to be irrelevant to the argument - if all plants have this ability, how will dispersed wind generators make the problem worse? Their individual output is much lower than a large plant, which should indicate that their potential to blow things up should be much less. On top of that, due to their smaller power output, it should be easy to put redundant power-surge blocking equipment in to help mitigate any problems.

The New England blackout happened before in 1965. There was also a nationwide blackout in Italy six weeks after the New England blackout in 2003, and several more minor blackouts, all caused by a failure to precisely match power generation to power consumption.

But I'm tired of arguing, so I'm not going to bother looking them all up.