K
kusheng
Guest
To reduce global warming, we need to reduce two things: coal and gasoline (oil). Isn't reducing coal and gas better for our economy in the long run?
For coal, the cost from producing electricity from burning coal compared to nuclear are about the same (http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/rae-report.pdf). The difference is that coal emits mercury that poisons fish. This has reduced sales in fish, affecting the entire fishing industry.
For oil, higher gas prices set by OPEC has put enormous stress on the U.S. economy. Reducing carbon emissions will require that automakers make cars that get better gas mileage. If drivers don't need as much gas, people won't be hurting so much when gas prices go up again. The financial markets won't fluctuate as much in the future, solidifying our economy.
If carbon reductions can be better for the economy, why are people so afraid?
For coal, the cost from producing electricity from burning coal compared to nuclear are about the same (http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/rae-report.pdf). The difference is that coal emits mercury that poisons fish. This has reduced sales in fish, affecting the entire fishing industry.
For oil, higher gas prices set by OPEC has put enormous stress on the U.S. economy. Reducing carbon emissions will require that automakers make cars that get better gas mileage. If drivers don't need as much gas, people won't be hurting so much when gas prices go up again. The financial markets won't fluctuate as much in the future, solidifying our economy.
If carbon reductions can be better for the economy, why are people so afraid?