So please tell me what the difference is between your belief that zero emission technology is economically viaable and my belief that adaptation is a more cost effect way to deal with the consequences of CO2 emissions?
Hmm ... maybe ya got me there!
Wait!
I know!
How 'bout ... we wind down the use of fossil fuels to cut down on emissions so it will be less disruptive and less costly to adapt to climate change?
Otherwise, the full cost of using fossil fuels becomes quite prohibitive.
Not to mention really really dumb.
I can at least support my view by looking at the costs of various technology options today and extrapolating a bit to take into account incremental improvements. Your view that future tech will magically solve all of the problems has no basis other than blind faith.
Have you looked at the improvements in renewables technology in the last decade?
Apparently not.
Why should anyone take your view seriously? Why is your view any different from a belief that god will save us all?
Didn't god create sun and wind?
Home
Contact
Login
Register