1) Spending money is identical to consuming energy and generating pollution. Using current and foreseeable technology, it is not possible for government to spend the money collected from a carbon tax without emitting even more carbon than before, and having less GDP to show for it.
2) Energy is the root cost of all economic activity. If energy is made more expensive, that ripples down to everything else. If energy costs 50% more, the third law of thermodynamics requires that quality of life decline 50%.
3) Earth does not have a CO2 problem, but a growing waste heat problem. The real problem to solve is how to cheaply radiate unwanted heat off Earth, and we'll need to know how to do that before we switch to nuclear alternatives. Solve that and we can manage the climate the same as we do inside buildings. Destructive hurricanes will cease to exist.
In re: “3) Earth does not have a CO2 problem, but a growing waste heat problem. The real problem to solve is how to cheaply radiate unwanted heat off Earth, and we’ll need to know how to do that before we switch to nuclear alternatives. Solve that and we can manage the climate the same as we do inside buildings. Destructive hurricanes will cease to exist.”
1. (a) What would you say is/are the source/sources of “growing waste heat”. (b) And why is it growing.
2,I do not think humans should be thinking we are now (or will be in 100-200 years) smart enough or capable enough to think we can manage the climate, even just it’s “heat”. In 1,000 years we might be sophisticated enough to, but not now.
3. Why must “managing” our “growing waste heat” be an endeavor that MUST be done BEFORE switching to greater use of nuclear power?
What “waste heat”?
I just had a frost alert a couple of nights ago on the weather forecast. I should have been running the AC by now.