| ||||||
| Environment Debate and defend the issues our world faces on topics such as global warming, environmental pollution, and the many proposals that might help solve these problems. |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Wild Wild West Gender: ![]() Posts: 7,665
| Bull-Headed Greenies Bull-Headed Greens Global-warming foes fight global-warming cures. By Deroy Murdock If Al Gore is right and global warming is genuine, grave, and the fault of mankind, why do he and so many environmentalists oppose measures that would reduce those pesky carbon-dioxide emissions? Power sources that could cut atmospheric CO2 rarely seem good enough to satisfy the greens. Unlike oil and coal, nuclear power does not generate CO2. It may be the most practical, atmosphere-friendly power source now available. And yet the former vice president seems unimpressed. “I’m skeptical about it playing a much larger role,” he said in London’s Guardian newspaper last May 31. “I don’t think it’s going to be a silver bullet.” True, nuclear plants produce radioactive waste that must be stored somewhere. Despite an impressive safety record in America, where nuclear power meets 20 percent of energy demand — and even more so in France, where 75 percent of power is nuclear — the potential remains for catastrophic accidents or sabotage. But as Gore and his pals should understand, life involves trade-offs between low-risk options and clear-and-present dangers. If global warming truly is the unfolding horror show that environmentalists say it is, then why do they consider atomic energy even more dangerous?...... The rest of the story at this link. http://tinyurl.com/pmx2q | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Sponsored Links |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37 AM.








Linear Mode