Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JOSEPH COLEMAN | June 6, 2008 07:06 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.

The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.

"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.

Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.

The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.

The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.

Story continues below

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.

That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.

The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground.

The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.

In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity _ the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy _ in the transport sector.

Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.

"This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment _ about $27 trillion _ would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.

"If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.

TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
Filed by Katherine Thomson  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
657
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
photo

45 Trillion for the "perfect climate".....but wait, what exactly is the perfect climate? The one we have now? The one the earth had 10,000 years ago?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 06/06/2008

The "perfect climate" is the one which YOU and 10 billion other people can survive in. That would be neither an ice age nor a wet green house.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

Actually, since humanity survives in both Arctic AND Tropical climates, either will work.

Also note, that world population density increases as you move towards the Equator. So apparently wet and warm is more survivable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 06/06/2008
- Raymondf I'm a Fan of Raymondf 4 fans permalink

To think Al Gore Won An Oscar, and Noble Prize for this BS. What a joke.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 06/06/2008

Looks like somebody is jealous...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1681 fans permalink
photo

Ah! A true Genius shows up. This one thinks Climate Change is a joke.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 06/06/2008
- ADR I'm a Fan of ADR 7 fans permalink

Climate change is not a joke. Believing that humans cause absolutely 100% of all global warming without taking into account any natural variability, including the sun, is the real joke.

Now where can I buy some of those carbon credits from Mr Gore?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 06/06/2008
- SarahZim I'm a Fan of SarahZim 7 fans permalink

your throat must get sore swallowing all that sand.

Al Gore didn't invent climate change, he just gave a voice to the entire global community of atmospheric scientists who at the time might as well have been pissing in the wind.

PS. if the web pages you are reading that talk about nay say climate change are a) conservative or economy orientated or b) have lots of Bold text in capitals and neon colors
you need to learn to think critically.

Yes reversing climate change might cause economic disaster, however so will the result of a 3 degree rise in global temperature.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 06/06/2008
- ctmommy I'm a Fan of ctmommy 2 fans permalink

"Al Gore didn't invent climate change, he just gave a voice to the entire global community of atmospheric scientists who at the time might as well have been pissing in the wind. "

And lined his pockets very nicely........

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 06/06/2008

Is this the same Al Gore whose home uses more electricity than a small town, electricity produced by burning coal no less? The same Al Gore who flies around in a private jet, which puts out more carbon than commercial crafts because they move fewer people? The same Al Gore who travels in a parade of gas guzzling SUV's for himself and his secret service escorts? All the while Al Gore cries and moans about how much carbon is being put into the atmosphere. Everyone needs to change their lifestyle, everyone except Al Gore of course.

He rationalizes his huge carbon footprint by saying it's all okay because he buys carbon credits. It's all fun and games as long as you can throw money around. Who cares? I can put as much carbon in the atmosphere as I like as long as I have money to buy my way out.

The man is the living definition of hypocrit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 PM on 06/06/2008

The emptiness of truthiness..............if you go from 25% of nothing to 80% of nothing, what do you get..................nothing!!! A 36% of a negligible amount is still negligible...•

One part per million (ppm): Denotes one part per 1,000,000 parts, one part in 106, and a value of 1 × 10–6. This is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into 50 liters (roughly the fuel tank capacity of a compact car), or one second of time in approximately 11½ days.

This only counts CO2 totals, not from specific producers such as cars, volcanoes or cow farts, yet you guys whose leaders still fly their jets, want us to pay. What a load of crap! Oh, that would produce more CO2!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 06/06/2008

Is that a lot of money? It will cost $45 trillion by 2050. We have 42 years, so thats just over $1 trillion per year. Thats about 2 - 3 % of world GDP.

3% of our GDP is $390,000,000,000.
390 billion. Per year.

Our bloated defense budget is $440 billion per year...

So, I'd say its pretty costly...

But that's assuming that these guys who wrote the article know what they are talking about and don't have a ulterior agenda...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 06/06/2008
- juangault I'm a Fan of juangault 3 fans permalink

Depends on whether you have children or not. Those who don't will party like it's 1999. Those who do might want to do everything possible to thwart the enslavement by the Wahabi's. I don't particularly blame them for exercising their position of monopoly on transportation energy, but hopefully things will change after Bush leaves office. My belief is that he was instrumental in upsetting the delicate condition of oil supplies in the world. He was a catalyst for what needed to happen, but I wish it was on a different time table. Those Texans are sitting in their high Dallas towers, practicing that old cowboy song: "yippy kai yai yo, get along little doggies, you're misfortune is none of my own" or some variation of it, as they watch the traffic below.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1681 fans permalink
photo

It is a lot of money. The good news is that the world can definitely afford it. Spending 1.1% of the World GDP should be doable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 06/06/2008

You can blow all these "cost" projections into the wind. We have plenty of ways to save energy. The average US citizen is wasting as much as the average European consumes. To bring US consumption down significantly won't incur much net cost at all. Peak oil is doing it via oil prices for the transportation sector already. Lighting can be taken care off by screwing in CFLs (and there is a new generation of even more efficient solid state LED lights on their way from the lab to the market). Heating/cooling can be made much more efficient with new building codes and this will generate enormous numbers of domestic jobs in the window/insulation industries.

So now you are into 2015-2020 time scale and rooftop solar will be close to cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, industrial solar will be cheaper. All of this activity will generate even more jobs that can not be outsourced. European politicians, for all who want to know, do not invest in energy saving/alternative energy because they are all "green". They invest in it because it generates jobs. And jobs generate votes in Europe. It will be the same in the US, shortly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 06/06/2008
- farseer I'm a Fan of farseer 7 fans permalink
photo

The Yucca Mountain problem illustrates well that we can't figure out what to do with the nuclear waste we have. Right now it just sits around on in surface storage dumps. Plus, all it takes is a serious nuclear accident at ONE nuclear plant, to kill a lot of people and render a large area uninhabitable. There have been a number of near-accidents. Anyone who says technology will now prevent those is dreaming. Technological safety devices were switched off at Chernobyl. Operators can and will do so again. 1400 nuclear plants???? That's NUTS!!! That's the worst "solution" since turning corn into fuel (gasohol) !!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 06/06/2008
- Marlyn I'm a Fan of Marlyn 91 fans permalink
photo

"1,400 nuclear power plants" ???

INSANITY!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 06/06/2008
- Tom95134 I'm a Fan of Tom95134 57 fans permalink
photo

It's interesting that they didn't mention anything about large concentrated solar tower based power systems such as what is being implemented in Spain and planned for North Africa to power southern Europe.

Also, what is the warming effect contributed by the nuclear plant's cooling towers? It's not carbon but that heat has to go someplace.

Does this $45 Trillion figure include the development of ultra-high voltage DC transmission systems that will be needed to distribute the power? Wind farms are only cost effective when located appropriately (same for solar tower generating systems). This means that much of the current AC distribution system will not support moving vast amounts of electrical energy from where it is generated to where it is used.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 06/06/2008

Solar towers... yeah, they are among the more stupid ideas. Few, if any, well informed environmentalist will support them. We will build a couple, they will suck and then we'll stop building them.

DC transmission systems exist. They don't need to be developed any more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

They will be installed for continental power grids anyway. I wouldn't worry about their price tag (unless your business depends on not paying 0.1cents/kWh in additional cost...).

Wind farms will not be the solution to this problem (there is not that much useful wind). Solar will be. And much, if not most of solar will be residential. So the transmission costs will probably be less, not more. But the grids have to get smarter.

Again, these are tiny worries on top of a big picture. You can leave them to the tens of thousands of engineers whose job it is to solve them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 06/06/2008
- MNCurler I'm a Fan of MNCurler 6 fans permalink

So- what's your proposal, and please don't say wind and/or solar power. They simply cannot provide the base load of energy a city needs to function. They are great for supplemental energy. So now you are left with Nuclear or Coal. What's your choice?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 06/06/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 109 fans permalink

While I agree, there are other ways,

it's NOT all that "stupid." The French have developed breeder reactors to handle - reprocess - the waste fuel so it can be re-used many many times. Further, they have proven that the right answer is to have ONE OR TWO plant designs, rather than have every single one be unique (as in the USA) so that whatever you learn at one can be applied to all the others - and thus keep them safe for less.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 06/06/2008

Hah! Considering our already burgeoning $53 Trillion debt http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm another $45 Trillion more will certainly stop global warming!!! And after that there won't be a single vehicle moving or a single business running in this country.

But the world will go on, even if we do manage to annihilate ourselves in the process.

Isn't nature wonderful?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 AM on 06/06/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 109 fans permalink

Too bad we'll take with us - humanity - virtually all vertebrate life. All mammals, reptiles, hell, probably even trees! That's a hell of a price to pay for our stupidity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 06/06/2008
- EinChicago I'm a Fan of EinChicago 38 fans permalink

Fundamentally, the big shift away won't happen for genarations because it is, effectively self-defeating. The increase in alternative energies will reduce demand for oil, which will make oil prices crash which will make alternative energies so expensive that over a decade, everyone will switch back to oil because it is cheap and the cycle will start again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 AM on 06/06/2008
- marinade I'm a Fan of marinade 48 fans permalink

Seems like you're leaving out a few conditions and caveats. We can call your argument the "Profiting From the Status Quo" argument.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

"over a decade, everyone will switch back to oil"

It won't take a decade.

Even if prices dropped a nickel, everyone would be rushing to fill up their cars. Drop the price a buck, and the family drive to Disneyworld is back on the table for Summer Vacation.

That's the way economics works. I guarantee, if the US were to stop burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, China and India would GLADLY take up the slack.

There is a very good chance that the warming is inevitable. Better to spend that 45 trillion on boats, and clearing Alaska for farmland.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 AM on 06/06/2008
- speakeasy I'm a Fan of speakeasy 3 fans permalink

I agree, in theory, with you, but oil is in decline worldwide and what is left is even more expensive( harder to get out) that any alternative energy out there. Plus, if we did invent alternatives and then switched back to oil we would already have the fallback of alternatives in place. Its not as pessimistic as it seems, but it is imperative we continue to pursue alternatives and once you have switched over to the new economy the oil, even if plentiful, can be used sparingly. There was a plan a while ago called the Rimini Protocol, which would work well in that type of scenario, but it takes diplomacy worldwide instead of war.

Also, we control the economies of China and India due to our purchasing power (for now). If we just enacted and enforced the protections of American producst we had a few decades ago we could brind a lot of jobs home, slow China and India to something sustainable and get America back to the country that was the envy of the world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 06/06/2008
- Raymondf I'm a Fan of Raymondf 4 fans permalink

Thats ok as long as you don't live in a stat that has 47 cents a gallon tax on gas.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 06/06/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 109 fans permalink

No, actually. World demand is already being met... Most Chinese would LOVE to have a car but can't afford one...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 PM on 06/06/2008
- Tom95134 I'm a Fan of Tom95134 57 fans permalink
photo

Oil prices won't "crash". The most likely scenario is that oil prices will stabilize at someplace around $125bbl. Why? because you will still need oil to provide much of the lubrication and to power things that don't run well on electricity, i.e. airplanes, or where the new electrical distribution has not reached.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 06/06/2008
- EinChicago I'm a Fan of EinChicago 38 fans permalink

Wow....you do a great imitation of someone circa 1983. You sound exacrtly like them. High oil prioces were here to stay the too, remember?

Demand destruction will crash oil prices just as they did in the 80s. And as oil prices slide, the affordaibility of alternative energies decreases until people switch right back over. It happened in the 80s and it will happen again in the 2010s.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 PM on 06/06/2008
- Raymondf I'm a Fan of Raymondf 4 fans permalink

Your are exactly right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 06/06/2008

You seem to like to subscribe to any nonsense...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:22 PM on 06/06/2008
- HumeSkeptic I'm a Fan of HumeSkeptic 1681 fans permalink
photo

What you describe is true only if it is left completely to supply and demand. Keep in mind that even now oil price is not determimed purely by supply and demand.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 PM on 06/06/2008
- EinChicago I'm a Fan of EinChicago 38 fans permalink

No, it's affected by manipulation. And that manipulation will work both ways. If the oil grubs start to see real cognizable demand destruction, those spigots will be yanked open so quickly heads will spin. A few OPEC hawks like Benzuala, Irana nd Algeria will squawk and their economies will crash because they need oil prices around teh $100 mark to sustain the expenses to which they've committed, but the majoprity of OPEC will not allow long term demand destruction without reacting and flooding the market with a glut as they did in the 80s/90s.


And for the record, I am all for massive spending on alternative energy. I think a greent tech boom could turn this country around faster than any dot com boom did. I'm just saying it is going to take significant political will including standing firm and effectively "throwing away" bhundreds of billions on more expensive fuel for the long term because Oil there is no way Oil will stay more expensive than solar or other forms of fuel without its price dropping rapidly to be extremely cheap in comparison again when faced with demand destruction.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 PM on 06/06/2008

Lickily, those 45 Trillion are in Bush Pesos.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 AM on 06/06/2008
- Ajita I'm a Fan of Ajita 108 fans permalink
photo

Nuclear? Why the hell does the report not talk about Solar?
The answer:
"....Paris-based International Energy Agency....?
Thats right, France is the world leader in Nuclear power. Its business as usual.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 AM on 06/06/2008
- ChicagoBob I'm a Fan of ChicagoBob 23 fans permalink
photo

!

Cheap at twice the price.

!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 AM on 06/06/2008
- steamboat I'm a Fan of steamboat 45 fans permalink

There it is: Build nuclear plants ! Yet, its been the environmentalists who in the past have blocked building them here. So which is it? .......and $45 Trillion they say. Ok, who pays it? Do you really want the USA to foot most of the bill? I'd like to hear your answers?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

I say build the plants and at the same time devise a plan to get the waste so far under the earth's crust that it can't do any damage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 06/06/2008
- Marlyn I'm a Fan of Marlyn 91 fans permalink
photo

My Father used to say "Just throw it in the ocean."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 06/06/2008
- Ajita I'm a Fan of Ajita 108 fans permalink
photo

The environmentalists blocked nuclear is the past because they have caused unprecedented disaster in the past. The technology was not ready for mass application in the past, and frankly, it isnt yet. We still have the problem of nuclear waste to deal with.
Why said we are going to foot most of the bill? Stop being paranoid. We currently have 4% of the worlds population and use 25% of the world's resources, releasing 100s of times more global warming gases per capita than citizens of most countries. All we need to do is match the rest of the world and be responsible. Right now, the rest of the world is footing the price that the USA should be paying.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

What "unprecedented disaster?" Nuclear is relatively safe. The China Syndrome was fiction, (Just like the Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth.)

So your solution, it to get Americans to live like people in the Third World?

Good luck selling that one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 06/06/2008
- EinChicago I'm a Fan of EinChicago 38 fans permalink

I have no problem with teh US footing that bill for teh simpel reason it is an investment not a waste. Unlike Iraq, where we are pouring money down a rabbit hole, every dollar spent on developing alternative in the US and making the US the alternative energy world producer is a dollar spent on job creation and infrastructure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:09 AM on 06/06/2008
- Sumocat I'm a Fan of Sumocat 37 fans permalink

$45 trillion is still much cheaper than the $500+ trillion to be spent on oil over the same period (costs us $3.5 trillion a year at current price and consumption). Also, unlike France, we don't have a management system for nuclear waste aside from using it in armor-piercing shells. The French use breeder reactors to get the maximum yield from their fuel before disposal; we don't. Last I checked, littering the countryside with depleted uranium (sorry, Iraq) is not an environmentally sound practice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 AM on 06/06/2008
- outnow I'm a Fan of outnow 199 fans permalink

I am willing to bet that the GOP would rather see their children and grandchildren die than to spend money on the environment. The invisible hand of the free market will solve all problems, according to their brand of Christianity - the religion that once concerned itself with poverty but now votes for the Republicans, with fewer exceptions. The cost of 45 trillion is cheap. Just the war in Iraq is costing three trillion according to Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist.

The crisis in the market in oil, food and water is caused by speculation by multinational corporations who privatize the water resources and manipulate the price of food and oil. No government is strong enough to stand up against the conspiracy. Almost a billion are starving. There are food riots in 33 countries. Political stability around the globe is a pipe dream. Just look at the shape the international financial system is in with undisclosed risk in bundled securities and credit default swaps. Junk bonds are defaulting and banks are shaky. The world is headed into a disaster of biblical proportions. Global warming should have been addressed forty years ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 AM on 06/06/2008
- Photofarm I'm a Fan of Photofarm 21 fans permalink

There is no crisis in the oil and food markets. Your " solutions " to the crisis would be worse than anything we have now. Just look at history and see how " progressive, enlightened, or any other word you care to use " governments always make the situation worse till they let people have freedom to make market choices.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 06/06/2008

I think the onus on proving that "there is no crisis" is on you. Everybody can mouth off, but how about a little proof?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 AM on 06/06/2008
- Marlyn I'm a Fan of Marlyn 91 fans permalink
photo

"governments always make the situation worse" ???

Not really. Only Republican governments, like GW Bush's, that clearly demonstrate how government can fail us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

Sadly you might be right.

Their slogan used to be "Better dead than red." Now it'll be "Better dead than green," and unless things change they just might get it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 06/06/2008
- OkieMon I'm a Fan of OkieMon 34 fans permalink

solar/hydrogen is the only way to go....going green is the only way to save the world and generate huge economic benefit for all. The national socialists (present day private corporations controlling world govt) will fight going green with all the lies they have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 06/06/2008

Finally we have a recommendation that shows there are costs and there going to have to be trade -offs in this effort. Before we go after a National Energy policy we need to agree on what we are trying to achieve - if it's to fight global warming then we need to shift away from both coal and oil, which means we will need to go for more nuclear power, which of course has its own set of problems (but at least large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't one of them). If its energy independence, then expanded drilling for oil in the US and increased use of coal are going to factor, and thats not attractive either. And oh by the way, if we push electric cars then we are going to need lots of big batteries, and I don't know if you've checked out the hazardous materials that go into these batteries (lead, cadmium, arsnic, etc) but there's another set of problems.

We're going to have to make choices, and some of the costs are not just going to be about money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 06/06/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect