i realize this has fallen way way off topic at this point.
and i appreciate the discussion.
i realize nuclear is a source of energy, but there's the nasty side effects of disposal and whatnot. isn't that just a tradeoff for reduced carbon?
bio. i don't know that it is the answer the media makes it out to be. in some studies it costs more energy to produce it than it delivers. and of course, it is already deeply entrenched in politics and pork funding.
wind and solar. wind has been difficullt. i think it works in niche applications, but i cannot forsee it being viable on a large scale. likewise with solar. tech seems to have barely advanced from when i was a child (many decades ago) - i don't forsee us all driving billions of solar-powered cars living in solar-powered house. it is rather crude and inefficient for large-scale use it seems. or perhaps it is just being deliberately held back by politically-minded people.
since the vast amount of the world's energy consumption seems to me to be fossil-related - either oil or gas or NG or coal, i have a hard time seeing any super heavyweights coming into the ring to challenge any of them. nevermind the complications of cost and infrastructure that may make a switch impossible, even if there is a will to do so.
this sort of comes full circle now because in order to effect the type of mindset change that would be necessary to get the population to accept nuclear reactors in their backyard or a farm of 300 windmills along their coastline or mountain ridge view - you would have to create a sense of urgency, a fear of the consequences should they elect not to take those adjustments to their personal standard of living in the interest of the greater good.
it comes back to doomsday scenarios, melting icecaps, flooding island nations, dying crops, etc.
you cannot lead with a headline that says, "scientists predict that the average temp in new england will be approx 1 degree higher over the next 5 years so please support the giant nuclear reactor project and vote yes on the wind farm down by the beach"
you need to paint a picture that threatens the consequences of not approving those nukes and windmills. the headline needs to say "we will all die if this doesn't work"
which i think was what i was originally getting at with regard to the book State of Fear.
it is not so much a scientific journal, a fictionalized interpretation of the science data as much as it is a commentary on the social consciousness and the methods necessary to pull off a ground-breaking shift in the very underpinnings of modern society.
it is about gov't getting involved in personal freedoms and choices and the underpinnings of democracy in a very accelerated and dramatic way. how far could it go? perhaps gov't will tell the auto makers what to make and then tell you what to buy? they may mandate that you can only used gov't approved forms of fuel - you may have a woodlot and a woodstove but those have been banned. your old auto as been banned. perhaps your pets emit an unnecessary carbon footprint with no tangible benefits for society. perhaps electricity and lighting will no longer be at your discretion and option - the grid, if it still exists, may impose caps on how much energy your household can use and when. more likely each instance of energy use will be subject to some manufactured energy tax - presumably to use towards research, but we all know that type of thing never happens.
think about it.
