Fascinating. Unfortunately, we don't have a similar, sound, list of preventative methods.
I'm told, for example, nuclear electricity generation is on the + side, vastly less contaminating, weather wise, than most current sources. The spent fuel problem is being solved by interesting reuse in the construction of the reactor chamber. Yet we reject it to the degree that we are falling behind in nuclear engineering. Similar, very local distributed electric generation is also being rejected. Solar in Santa Fe is not allowed in "historic" areas. Neighborhood energy generation techniques are not being pursued. I live in a city that can't even handle a problem as trivial as reasonable broadband per household. Do I think we have a chance of reducing pollution when we can't even solve broadband? No. So a list of preventatives could be a help. Especially with the same ratio of acceptance as this report! -- Owen On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Tom Johnson <t...@jtjohnson.com> wrote: > FYI > > > http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart > > -tj > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
