I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs
me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is
that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy
problem facing us today, which is global warming, not
high fuel prices. And if there are no alternatives to fossil
fuels then we (the human race, or at least civilization as
we know it) are truly fucked. You all might want to take
a look at the latest reports on climate change. Without a
70% (yes that's 70%) reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions over the next twenty (yes 20) years, we are
on course to raise the planet's temperature from 3 - 7 F degrees
and the temperature of the US from 5-10 F degrees, over the
course of the next century. The consequences of this are
unimaginable. Trebling or quadrupling fuel prices, in this
context, would be a good thing.
Ellen Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>>what's wrong with the
>> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
>> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
>
>It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
>the
>alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
>because they are not alternatives)
>
>)))))))))))
>
>CB: Solar ?
>
