Antarcticice,
It is a good example of WHAT??? A good example of WHAT???
Do you mean that it is a good example that nuclear power can be both affrodable and very safe???
Do you mean that it is a good example of how nuclear power can be used, and how they were not stupid enough to try to push things through like ethanol???
Do you mean that it is a good example that the DEMS of today are so caught up in their own politics that they cannot even recognize that their greatest enemy could be their greatest ally???
Just like the red scare of old, all you have is scare-tactics. You frightened people out of nuclear power with tales of three-headed children from some glowing green goo. You claim to want change, but deny the one KNOWN solution that is currently in use in many of the locations that you point to as being models!!!!
Seriously, what the crap is wrong with you people???
Start using your brains and working with the repubs for a nuclear solution.
All I hear from you people is how unscientific I am, how much education I lack, for not trusting your modeling of a chaotic system 100 years in the future!!! You are the ones that claim to care, but evidently you don't. Evidently, you all would like nothing better than to insults the VERY PEOPLE who you could be working with for change. PATHETIC!!!
So warmers need to stop telling me how much I should fear something, that they are so unfearful of, that you won't even work towards a solution.
Edit:
And Antarcticice,
While you might say that some warmers (and possibly you) support nuclear power, look at how they treat "deniers" that support this solution. Why are you more concerned with people accepting your overestimating models then accepting good solutions??? Why would you even tolerate warmers who only accept the solution of taxation, when you should know VERY WELL that a tax plan has no shot of getting through Congress with the economy as it is???
The population of Sweden is 9.6m while T&T is just 1.2m
The difference in population compared to the emissions of CO2 is down to industry.
Sweden's power is a combination of hydro and nuclear, very low emissions
While Trinidad is (or was) an oil based economy, they are now moving to LNG and while that does reduce CO2 emissions a little it is still a strong source of CO2.
Sweden even compared to it's neighbors is doing quite well in terms of emissions
https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/exp...
Norway's emissions have climbed since the 70's Switzerland's have been very low over the same period, Sweden has actually gone from well above both countries to matching Switzerland today, a significant drop, with a very good economy and a high standard of living, it's a good example of the denier BS that doing something about AGW will ruin the economy.
Edit for our struggling pretend geologist, whoops, it seems Trinidad does have highlands (900m high) a small range in fact that feeds some major rivers
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
They also are looking into importing power from an existing hydro source
http://chamber.org.tt/about-the-chamber/...
Which would be far cheaper than building their own dams.
I'm from a similar (but temperate island) Tasmania our highest mountain is not much higher than this but all our power is hydro.
Tasmania's hydro model is based on the Swedish one and ours dates back almost as far as theirs to the late 40's and 50's, further in fact as we had the first hydro power station in the Southern Hemisphere in 1895 so yes I do know roughly how old theirs is. Neither Sweden or Tasmania systems where built with CO2 reduction in mind at the time, but as clean sources of power, that they now are a great benefit to CO2 mitigation is purely luck.
Wikipedia is your friend.
"Sweden has applied policy instruments and measures for climate change mitigation since the 1980s. The instruments used include economic instruments (such as CO2 tax, subsidies, penalties), legislation, voluntary agreements and a dialogue between the state and business enterprise"
Sweden is one of the greenest countries on Earth. Trinidad and Tobago are mostly undeveloped.
Close but not the same Trinidad's power comes almost exclusively fro coal and oil fueled power plants That is why it is so high
It is nice to have hydro-electrical power available. It is a good clean source of energy. I suspect Sweden had their hydroelectricity long before their were worries about carbon. Trinidad isn't as modern and industrialized as Sweden and it has no really highlands that could generate the power needed to make hydroelectricity viable.
Trinidad and Tobago is similar to Bangladesh as well. Source is CDIAC.
