Lomborg is what I would call a practical alarmist. He believes we are causing a problem but believes that we can also create workable solutions. If a problem is demonstrated than I would agree with Lomborg.
Some1, insanity is socialists constantly making the same mistakes over and over again expecting a different result because this time is it is going to done by them. There is nothing (NOTHING) stopping you from taking your money and time to invent the next big Green Energy Solution. I wish you luck. If you do, you stand to make Bill Gates look like a pauper. I just don't need you to pick my pocket with your harebrained schemes.
Innovation for a liberal is supporting every bad idea as long as the message is right.
Librals do more to stifle innovation with their made up crisises or cockblocking of real innovation. Ranchers in Texas had an innovative way to save endangered species, raise them and charge people to hunt them. They did great but liberals would rather see them die than hunted.
There are plenty of good reasons to develop alternative energy that works and is affordable, saving the planet isn't one of them.
The article raises a valid point. The AGW opponents only talked cancelation of alternative energy subsidies. The AGW supporters only talked more of the same without wondering why the decade or so's work in the alternative energy field BEFORE AGW had failed to produce results.
Alph, "sometime you do with what you got" is the argument made about thirty years ago. We are not taking boat tours of coastal skyscrapers, so clearly that position was wrong. Besides, Climate Realist has long been correct (and in keeping with the pre-ideology driven environmental movement) in pointing out "what you got" is nuclear. Though this leads to one of the two defects in the article.
The article fails to address the need for transportation energy. (Electricity could have switched to mainly nuclear long ago for rather less money.) But the creation of incentives should work there as well. I am rather curious to see what genetic engineering can do, though the possibilities are hardly so limited.
The article also fails to address the possibility that we may need to sequester the already released carbon dioxide. This could be incentivized too, although it will come to no regular's surprise I believe the answer has been available since the late 1980's. Iron fertilization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
(Short version: iron is not very soluble in ocean water and is commonly a deficient nutrient there. Adding iron causes microscopic plants to multiply. The plants absorb carbon and a significant number sink, sequestering the carbon on the ocean floor. Nor is this just theory. Every part has been observed as natural processes or as experimental results. The overall method has been observed both ways.
Amazingly a number of people are all exited about an alleged recent experimental result that left oxygen depleted zones. It was as if they'd never heard of eutrophication:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophicat...
Just add the iron more diffusely and you'll get results in line with the over a decades worth of more positive observed experimental AND natural results. Since this is an imitation of a natural process, either the "dead zones" are an avoidable abnormality or not significant to the environment. Take your pick. )
“insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” - such as delaying mitigation efforts and expecting that it just goes away? Yes, that is a tad bit insane.
"We need to increase funding for R&D of green energy tremendously. If we innovate the price of green energy down below fossil fuels, everyone will switch – even China and India." - I must say that I do not disagree with this. I would hardly call this innovation since that is exactly what many of us have been saying all along. People like you have only half heartedly agreed. How many times you have said that we should wait to see how bad it gets before we do anything? It had always been that you thought it is not going to be that bad. Are you now saying that it is time to put serious money into renewable energy sources? Good for you! You may actually be realizing that the best time to do so has passed us by.
No.
The end result is that we do nothing but wait for 'magic' to fix the problem,
while the energy companies extract and burn all the coal, oil, and gas, they can manage.
It is the only path.
We don't need a climate solution, global warming's bs
Of course it is. What do you think I am talking about whenever I talk about solar, hydro and nuclear power.
I used to talk about solar, wind and nuclear power, but since the price of solar panel has dropped below that of coal, I doubt that wind power is competitive.
bjord lombord is a known denier.
his approach is to delay. we don't have the time.
btw, christopher columbus did not wait for transatlantic air transportation. sometime you do with what you got.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-innovation-is-the-best-path-to-a-climate-solution/article22100934/
