The reason is wrong, the action is right, but will the money go to the right places?
$45 trillion needed to combat warmingTOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.
"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
Now if we would build nukes like there's no tomorrow, and put wind wherever we can (sorry Teddy, but that means off Nantucket) that's something I am for. Actions in our interest in terms of independent energy, and it's political freedoms, match closely in many many cases with green initiatives, and BOTH SIDES should recognize and ally on those actions.
I am of the opinion that cutting back green house gases by increasing cost, and decreasing output is a loser.But does anyone here believe that a democratic congress will allow ambitious development of nukes, starting tmw?
This should be ONE PART of an aggressive program of energy independence which EXCEPT FOR AGGRESSIVE DRILLING matches perfectly with eliminating greenhouse gases.
But the democratic party doesn't even want to think about that in that way, and the republican party has missed the boat in making allies entirely.