http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com

With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce

This idea of carbon sequester is science fiction, it always will be. The volumes are astronomical, and the idea that they’re going to compress it and drive it into salt domes is quiet honestly, just plain silly. It’s just junk science to give people a false sense that something can and is being done.

Nuclear is the only bridge we have to a future of clean renewable power. The technology is here to do it safely. As unpalitable as it is to many it’s all we have.

Remember folks, carbon emission from fossil fuels have to go to ZERO. That’s the only answer. There’s no getting around it.

There’s no such thing as clean coal – never will be.

How long will that transition take?

In the mean time does it hurt anything to clean up coal?

No, coal is not a long-term solution, but it’ll be here a while, so why not clean it up some?

CO2 levels began creeping up at the very beginning of the industrial revolution when global fossil fuel use was less than 1% of what it is today.

That said, if you want atmospheric level of CO to level off, much less decrease, emissions must go to a level lower than at the beginning of the industrial revolution – that’s right, damn near zero.

back before we knew how to make fire, it took 100s of thousands of years for the planet (then loaded with plant life) to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels by anything like the last century’s increase, there’s no damn reason what-so-ever to think it will happen any faster the next time.

Anyone with half a brain doesn’t need a team of scientist to tell them some fairy tell about how things might be well and good in a thousand years. It won’t.

The question is now just how screwed are things going to be in a thousand years, and we’re still headed the wrong way on a fast train.

Carbon emissions must go to ZERO in the next few decades. That’s the truth no one wants to tell you.

Global warming protest.