The Nuclear Advisory Board of the Austrian Minister for the Environment (FAF), determined that going nuclear would not lead to achieving the goals required by the Kyoto Protocol. Rather what is required is a reduction in GDP. http://www.accc.gv.at/publ/UmwFor_Heindl...
That is exactly what limits on CO2 production via tax or any other means would accomplish.
However, the NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT disagrees in that they promote nuclear energy as a good way to meet the goals of the Kyoto Protocol. http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2002...
However, the Kyoto Protocol is now a failure, due to its inability to be ratified by enough nations to cover more than 15% of human CO2 production. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/...
In the USA, interest in the Kyoto Protocol has fallen since 2005, and it now rates below smog, Flouride, and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=k...
This may be partly due to the fact that global warming is not as evident as it used to be. Below the surface, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/p...
At the surface, there has been nothing obvious in the way of warming for over a decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Despite all the scare mongering, satellite altimetry shows the rise to be only a manageable one foot per century. http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRi...
Most people realize that the ice-core data shows that the CO2 concentrations in the bubbles appear to lag the O18 proxy for temperature, indicating that temperature changes drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations rather than the other way around. http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/rsama0...
When climate reconstructions are done for the last 2 millennia using proxies that are more reliable than tree-ring data, the variation is large enough that the recent ups and downs in global temperature now appear to be simply normal variation. [1]
Edit: Kano has a good point about the atmospheric CO2, but I do not know why he brought it up, and then failed to provide the data for measurements of atmospheric CO2 has been monitored since 1830: (1830 - 1960) [2] and (1958 - present) [2a]
Naturally, the direct measurements show more variation than the ice-core bubbles due to the problem ice-cores have with diffusion in the firn. [3]
Don't forget about the cost of wind turbines to wildlife like birds. For example: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/16/...
I believe Greenpeace is very strongly against the killing of protected species, especially by humans. BTW, you won't find much about this on .gov or .org since it's not exactly a great public relations story.
Okay here are some costs http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d...
The industrial world started with the discovery of coal for energy it made Great Britain into one of the richest countries in the world, for progress prosperity, and higher income you need cheap, reliable compact energy.
Renewables just don't cut it, they cost too much, they are unreliable (the sun doesn't always shine the wind doesn't always blow) and they need huge areas of land to produce small amounts of energy.
Carbon taxes could lower carbon emissions, but with many countries in the world refusing to implement taxes, it means those who do, will be unfairly punished, (lost economy lost jobs higher prices).
Lastly do you even know what percentage of Co2 our atmosphere contains, most people don't.
Here's NASA saying it's the sun that drives temperature... not people.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...
My part of the project is on the costs of using renewable energy.. as in the following questions will guide my writing:
Why are unclean energy (fossil burning) plants still being built and used when there are cleaner (renewable energy) plant alternatives?
What are the cost differences in building an unclean power plant and a clean one?
If the Caron tax can help deplete carbon emissions, then why are so many people against it? Is it just the cost increases on many products or is there more to it?
My group is doing it from the view point of Greenpeace so its "Human induced" in the topics opinion. If you have any reliable sources of information that will give me building costs and details, it would be appreciated and will help me get all this work done quicker.
