re: #397 EbolaSpotinAL

Here is how various climate scientists think about global warming: What is important is the total amount of carbon. The easy stuff runs out, we are still OK, then what?

As an analogy, a guy may have a tendency to drink beer in ever increasing quantities. At first it is a sweet stout, liquid gold from the Brent brewery. As he starts to run out and get desperate, he turns to the beers other people left on the table and put out their cigarettes in (tar beer). That is when he should realize he has an addiction that is getting out of hand.

The logical fallacy to that argument is that there is no alternative to beer. There is, of course. There’s pot. You don’t wake up with a hangover and a mouth full of desolation.

We don’t have to be totally dependent on fossil fuels, now. We can wean ourselves off of them. They will still be necessary for plastics, fertilizers, and air travel, but for power generation and transportation, we are discovering more and more options.

Have you seen this? Granted it would be expensive to implement, but it’s an option:

en.wikipedia.org

It’s not a zero sum game. We *do* have viable options. Entrenched interests don’t like them, but you now what?, we are not here to guarantee anyone’s profit. Markets do not exist to do so. Stagecoach and buggy whip manufacturers didn’t like automobiles.