I am serious about CO2 and strongly support more nuclear plants.

Yeah, we put up with stuff we would not put up with if we weren't dependent on burning oil. We know it eventually extracting will get expensive. we know burning stuff for energy causes local pollution. It is almost certain that burning stuff is affecting the climate. I am less clear on the impact of modest reductions in burning stuff. I suspect we'll get more value out of controlling the climate to disrupt the "natural" cycle of glaciation/deglaciation than we'll get from reducing emissions. We don't have that geoengineering right now though. All we can do is reduce emissions and look for alternatives.

I don't care why the left accepts science of climate change but not GMOs or why the right accepts food science but not the foundations of modern biology. What matters is facts, not interested parties and those who try to sell ideas favorable to their interests.

The world economy runs on burning stuff, so we expect a political backlash against evidence that burning stuff has hidden costs.

I don't actually think that fossil fuels are doing much discernible damage to the environment. My main reason for interest in deprecating the use of fossil fuels is to disembowel the oil hierarchy in the Middle East, with a secondary purpose of saving petroleum for products rather than fuel.

Jan

AlGore (et al) get to use carbon based fuel sources, but only if everyone else stops.
Hypocrites.
Part of this is to suppress the ordinary people of the G7 countries, but I think it will target developing countries ability to compete with the G7.

Plus 1 Jan. The Marxists never ever credit the individual with the capacity to innovate.

I think that most of us agree with that. Dystopic prophecies tend to ignore innovation. As you point out, 200 years is plenty of time in which to innovate.

Jan

I would rather use nuclear power for electricity and use oil for bowls and cell phones. Some of the engines that oil powers are ones I do not want to support.

Jan

If they were serious about CO2 as a problem and not simply using it as a 'green agenda' tool they would be heavily advocating for an increase in nuclear.

Of course, they are celebrating shutting down nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dams (the other proven non carbon energy source). Which rather betrays their actual agenda.

I would actually prefer to use nuclear instead of fossil fuels. While I think the threat caused by CO2 is overrated, burning fossil fuels puts stuff in the atmosphere that I would rather not breath if I don't have to, including the fact that significantly more radiation is released by a coal plant than a nuclear one.

I think it is interesting that one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels gets relegated to parentheses. Not picking on you, AG - I see it frequently. Actually, long before anyone uttered the phrase, "global warming", utilities (I worked for one for a while) were convinced that they were going to save the world (from OPEC at that time) by electric cars powered by nuclear plants. It's always seemed to me that the global warming crowd should pick up on that. Of course your "over regulated" comment applies in all caps to the nuclear power industry.

OK ... let the hate-mail begin!
VG

The thing that's wrong is the long-term environmental cost. We can't stop using them suddenly, but we can find alternatives sooner rather than after the fossil fuels are more expensive to access and have damaged the environment.