Carbon dating proven false

No matter what we do today, about almost anything, there will price fluctuations and civil unrest about something.Does that obligate us to stifle current living standards via public policy for all of these possible future outcomes?It won't happen with out human effort and intention but it is entirely possible that China and India could avoid- to a significant degree- the U. transportation system model that is so dependent on the single occupant vehicle.And contrary to the claims of many in the automobile and oil industries who profit off this dependency, American are in fact beginning to give up their cars where the incentives to drive are changing.So, talk of the Fuel must also be partnered with Engine Efficiency.The efficiency of an electric motor, on the other hand, being 90% cancel's out the need for gas's energy density.In a manner of speaking, the current climate and current range of species available for us to interact with is what we are equipped to do and invested in.Others that are "better" may be possible, but we as people would have to adapt to them, at some cost. Kennedy: True costs of each potential energy source would be great, and I'd love to see that happen, including defense and state department implications.

We are thus not determined in anyway to burn up all the remaining fossil fuels. Kennedy: I very much agree that we should be more concerned with speciation than other changes to the environment, which we cannot necessarily know fully.Already we see utilities offer incentives for efficiency to offset capital costs of new generation plants, and other pseudo-private actions along those lines, without a centralized cap-and-trade policy forcing such a decision.If our public policy should not be intended to benefit a specific (renewable) energy source, should we also remove benefits to other energy sources (tax credits to oil and coal exploration, for example) to allow full price for each to drive consumption decisions?All that said, i personally can't yet get my head around the right public policy actions to mitigate environmental impacts.

As an avid listener here, I'm certainly cynical of any public policy action other than staying out of the way.

Boy, I found Laughlin to be rather pedantic and cocksure of his views based on some very flimsy core reasoning.