Town Square

Post a New Topic

We can be the greenest city of all

Original post made by Cut down carbon emissions, Fairmeadow, on Oct 22, 2007

Since our city should be on the forefront of climate change, we may want to consider trying this out here in Palo Alto:

Web Link

WE should consider making it mandatory that residents of PA cut down their carbon footprint, with limits for carbon emissions per year and stiff fines for those that do not comply.

It seems to work in England.

In a couple of years when Mayor Kishimoto steps down from the council this would be the perfect position for her to take on.

Comments (53)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 22, 2007 at 8:23 am

Here comes 1984.
LibLud Malthusian Lysynkoist science.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 8:26 am

The global warming doxy is not only the new Marxism - it's a new mental disease! Too bad that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere LAG the actual warming, so I'm not sure what this type of self-imposed deprivation will actually accomplish. As for your post - it's one thing if the deprivation is voluntary - we need to fight any politician who proposes to control us through enviromental extremism.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim H
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:52 am

It's one thing for 160 loonies in the UK to voluntarily do this; it's completely idiotic to expect that a city of close to 60,000 will stand still for it. The population demographic of Palo Alto differs significantly from a woman who lives on a coal barge and converts waste from her toilet into fertilizer (see web site cited previously). And burning wood for heat??? Can you imagine the environmental impact of everyone in Palo Alto doing that???

Most live in Palo Alto because we want and can afford the amenities that life in an affluent city provides. We're not about to revert to living in caves. Or carrying fresh water home by bicycle to a converted barge.

Sorry.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jules
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:04 am

Jim and ten18 fail to take into account the well established fact that (as Al Gore said in his recent Palo Alto appearance), the earth is in dire crisis right now. We have only a few years to take drastic action to curb carbon emissions.

It is the responsibility of us all to take actions that will save the planet. None of us can be exempt from the sacrifices it will take. In Palo Alto, we are fortunate that there is a high level of environmental consciousness. So many of the required reductions in high-carbon lifestyles can be implemented on a voluntary basis.

As in all socially responsible iniatives, there will be some recalcitrants. For these, there is nothing wrong with economic encouragement in the form of high taxation of energy-intensive lifestyles. ANd if that fails, of course there are mandatory measures that can (and must) be made for the good of the planet and for us all. The time for dithering is past.

I do not see the measures taken by the responsible people in the UK as burdensome. Here in California, the weather is so mild, that we do not even have to heat our large homes most of the time. (Try an extra sweater or a jacket when it gets cool.) And what a wonderful place we have for bicycling! We could virtually eliminate private cars here, which might be an inconvenience - but a small one compared to the environmental benefits we'd enjoy with our sacrifice.

Let's show the rest of our wasteful country how it can be done!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:10 am

Al Gore is a self-important, self-promoting gasbag who has obviously brainwashed the weaker minded of us with his propaganda movie, which has already proved false in many areas. There is NO imminent crisis looming due to "carbon emissions."

I'm all for clean (although I'm sick of "green"), non-polluting (and carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant) energy sources. Energy efficieny is also a noble goal. However, I haven't worked like an animal all my life so that I can sacrifice for dubious "environmental benefits."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:11 am

As I recall, the gloom and doomers have been saying that the "time for dithering is past" for the last 30 years. We're all still here, so either nothing is going to happen - or, it's too late, so why bother?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RS
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:32 am

I always kind of wonder about people that promote this level of energy savings. Where are they getting the energy to post messages about it? What about the energy to deliver it, store it, retrieve it?

Hard to take them seriously.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 22, 2007 at 12:17 pm

looks like a few people in town need to look at this logically, including most of thew above posters

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 22, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Mike,

That little high logic course left out an imprtant choice: Choose column "A" (action), but WITH nuclear power as the main action. That would solve the problem much better than any luddite schemes, AND it would prevent a worldwide deprssion. Doesn't get any better than that!

Come on, Mike, you gotta support nukes... if only because you wanna be logically sensible.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 22, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Greg,

Do the same truth table exercise with nukes, and deploy worst case scenarios. the answer is pretty clear. Go ahead, try it.

What you keep leaving out are important innovations happening as we speak - including nano-nased solutions, and sophisticated incentive-based programs to change behavior.

Nuclear power is a losing proposition, leading to short term gains, and ultimately less innovation in the power supply sector. The downside to nukes are massive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 22, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Mike,

Nukes are both short term and moderatley long run (several decades)successes. If nanotech, etc. cannot compete, as long promised, they will need to wait their turn.

I cannot think of any serious downsides to nukes, as long as they are properly regulated by the U.S. government for safety issues. The fuel is cheap, and long lasting, and it can be recylced into even more fuel (until all the U-238 is gone, via Plutonium-239 fuel cycle). Nukes do not emit greenhouse gasses.

The global warming hysteria was started by Margaret Thatcher as a ploy to get nukes approved in Britain. The irony is that she was right about nukes, and she got caught up in her scare tactics about global warming. She must be cringing, at this point!

Back to your chart: Please go ahead and add another row called "go nukes" (under the action column, "A" and the inaction coumn "B"). What would you put in those boxes, Mike?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Davey
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm

If one follows the logic of the video, we'd never do anything at all in any field of human endeavor.

If I considered the worst thing that could happen to me driving to the grocery store (I'd be in an accident and die), and took the necessary action to avoid that possibility (stay home and grow my own food), most people would say I'm over-reacting to a small possibility of a great harm.

Moreover, the chase of staying home and growing my own food isn't risk-free either because I'd likely eat a less varied diet, making me less healthy possibly. And if I were spending all my time growing food, I'd be poorer - making me less able to afford good medical care and other things that being better off would afford me that might extend my life.

Same thing in the video. Spending a lot of money avoiding the chance of global warming will make the world a poorer place. Poorer societies have more brutish lives, higher (infant and adult) death rates, less medical care...and you get the rest.

In sum, we all weigh risks and benefits, calculating the odds as we go. The video glosses over the very real deleterious effects on health, happiness, and even of actual existence for people who are made poorer by the global recession he posits might occur from spending to avoid global warming. (And it can be bad: check out some descriptions of life in the 30's depression - which the video says may be less drastic than the depression caused by spending to avert a climate crisis that may not happen.)

So unless we have some more information on what the odds are of catastrophic global warming that might be averted by spending a lot of money and impoverishing much of mankind, the video really makes no logical sense.

We can't say how much we should spend to avoid global warming without more information about the costs of doing so, and without knowing more about the probablity distribution of various global warming scenarios than we do.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 22, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Davey,

You're bringing in a variable that creates an argumentum ad absurdum. We're talking about nuclear power. If you believe your own argument, and take your logic in the other direction, anything goes, including unbridled pollution. Think about it, or go read Copi's "Introduction to Logic".

Greg,

Again, I asked you to do the SMAE excercise for nukes - what did you come up with? Please don't try to intoroduce a variable that has known negative consequences, without bringing in those consequences.


What I would like to see form you - without introducing variables that are absurd, oro whose negative consequences are well known - is "how is the argument presented in the video mistaken, on its own merits?"

Can you do that. if not, you've just lost this debate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Brit
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Don't look at the UK as the B all and End all of being green. There may be some good programs around the country, but they are isolated and not the norm. I have relatives all over the country. Generally speaking, they are not as green conscious as we are here. They are not able to recycle anything like the amount of products that we do here, and when they can, it is usually more effort on their part, e.g. taking all their glass to bottle banks in the community where they have to sort the glass by colour. They may be more into re-using, composting and organics than we are here, but that is often done as leftover habits from WWII when rationing and the like was very strict. They never really got into using paper products and other throwaway items as we have here. They have had very strict laws about burning smoke and pollution fuels, e.g. coal and wood fires, since the 60s when there was a big effort to get rid of the city smogs - and it worked.

So, for the average Brit nowadays, there may be some programs going on for some green cities, but for the most part they are far from being the norm. It seems that our mayor was only shown the very best and travelled long distances (comparatively of course) to see them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Davey
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 22, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Arrogant tone aside, Mike is correct when he implys that [without knowing the probability distribution] we cannot make good dscisions about what, if anything should rationally be done to avoid the potential untoward outcome of any risk. Nuclear power, global warming...anything with uncertainty associated ....has to be measured by the risk of going forward, the benefits of doing so verses the cost of acting (or not) and the probabilities of each.

Nuclear power has risks. Global warming has risks. We cannot say whether its worth taking on the risk of Nuclear power to reduce the risk of global warming without knowing more about each. This is the mistake made in the video, and the omission in Mike's arguments.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RS
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 22, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Davey is not wrong, the video does underplay the consequences of a Depression. A depression will bring about also death and other calamities that he only placed in the global warming column.

Also the video's choices are too limited. Perhaps there is a another column to stand in. a column explored by RMI where energy is conserved and the world's economy prospers. Where even if you don't buy into global warming, you still can reap economic benefits by participating.

In that column,
if climate change is wrong, you save money.
if climate change is right, you save money and save the planet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Raising energy costs above the budget of the bottom half has the highest ptice of all, and we are approaching that now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Saving money through conservation sounds reasonable enough, I cannot accept mandatory conservation and lifestyle change through punitive and regressive environmental taxes. This government gets more of our hard-earned dollars than they deserve. What are they going to do with more but waste it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by RS
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 22, 2007 at 3:15 pm

RMI talks about conservation through innovation, not deprivation.
They have rolled out solutions for corporations where the ROI is less than 12 months.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 22, 2007 at 3:17 pm

"whose negative consequences are well known"

Mike,

The reason I cannot come up with a negative box for nuclear is that I don't know of any serious issues. Please tell us what the negatives are. There have been many scare tactics over the years, but they all fall apart, upon rational analysis.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 22, 2007 at 3:23 pm

How much is it worth to avert any possibility of human caused global warming?:

1. Nothing

2. All the GDP of every country in the world, leaving nothing for food, shelter, or anything else.

3. Something in between.


Obviously one can't answer this without knowing something about the chances of global warming without action, and under any given level of anti-warming spending between 0 and "everything".

The flaw in the video is that it attempts to do so.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HugeFootprint
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 22, 2007 at 3:37 pm

In my opinion, this debate is primarily politcal. Republicans had gay marriage as a way to drive their base to the polls. Democrats haven't been successful using the war as that driving force, so they turned to human-caused climate-change.
Now, I'm not saying humans haven't contributed - who knows, in reality there are probably a lot of factors. It needs more study before you start managing people's private lives.

I think a lot of people are getting sick of the far right and far left. I'm voting libertarian from now on!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Oct 22, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I hope there is global warming; I find most days in Palo Alto a little too cool.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Terry
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 22, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Cut Down, I think you and the Mayor, and any others you can get, should lead us all by example. You'll cut down emissions and besides, it will be fun to watch. Just a guess, but I think the Mayor may just do it long enough to generate the photo op (and then have the City hire someone to stand in for her).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob T
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 22, 2007 at 8:50 pm

From viewing the video, it appears that the worst-case scenario associated with global warming (a high probability, if we listen to the nay-sayers) is far more severe than even the worst, most catastrophic accident conceivable involving a nuclear plant (exceptionally low probability), especially if evaluated at a global level. If using more nuclear energy could reduce global warming, the choice is a no-brainer. It's classic risk/reward analysis.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill Smithson
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 22, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Let's go back to the premise of the original post. Palo Alto should try this because "It seems to work in England". Following the web link given, it "works" in England because 160 people are doing it. ??????

So, if I can find 160 people in England who survive through odd behavior, we should try to mandate that behavior in Palo Alto, because it "works" in England???

I can probably find 160 people in England who eat rocks and set small animals on fire for heat. Wouldn't that be a great, precedent-setting future for Palo Alto?

Do we want to solve a problem, or make Palo Alto the laughing stock of the entire world???


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 22, 2007 at 9:32 pm

"The reason I cannot come up with a negative box for nuclear is that I don't know of any serious issues. Please tell us what the negatives are."

Nuclear waste, nuclear accidents (are nuke plants 100% safe?)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob T
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Yes, there are risks associated with nuclear power. The risks need to be addressed -- and weighed with the benifits. The risks can be minimized. The risks associated with global warming apparently can't be.

The idea that coastal cities may be destroyed by oceans that rise 20 feet worries me. The idea that a nuclear plant may have a problem also worries me, but not nearly to that extent.

Right now, something like 85% of the power in Lithuania comes from nuclear power. I don't stay awake at night worrying about that. The EU is forcing Lithuania to re-evaluate that, but the "cure" may be worse than the "disease". Here's a quote from the Central Europe Review (1999) - Web Link:

"Lithuania has already experimented with the import of heavy fuel oils and even the environmentally disastrous Orimulsion for use in its other power plants, but further reliance on such imported fuels could prove to be financially and environmentally catastrophic in the long term."

"Environmentally catastrophic". Isn't that what we're trying to prevent? And, that's from the alternatives to nuclear energy.

Do you stay awake at night worrying that Lithuania might have a nuclear accident??? Personally, I have a lot more faith in our research and regulation here, than I do about a small former Soviet republic. And, I'm not worried about their reactors.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Ah, the protection offered by distance. Are you writing from Lithuania? I doubt it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:36 pm

Mike,

The "nuclear waste" that you are so worried about is really a tremendous asset. It has an enormous amount of U-238 in it. U-238 can be put in a breeder reactor, bombarded with neutrons to become Plutonium-239, which can then be used as a fision fuel. The remaining residual radioactive waste can be stored undergroud (Yucca Mountain or injected into subduction zones. It is not an issue. It is just a scare tactic.

Accidents, with modern designs are highly unlikely. However, if they do occur they will be contained by the structure around the core. Three Mile Island was a safety success, not a failure. Chernobyl was a faulty Soviet design, and it had no conatinment building. Even so, the disaster was not nearly as big as many predicted.

Nuclear power is an amazing opportunity to go green. Let's take it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob T
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Mike -

I'm not there now, but I've spent time there - and in that part of the world. I've spent a lot of time in Kaliningrad, Russia -- only a few hundred miles from the reactor in question.

I didn't think that distance was an issue for "global warming". It doesn't happen in Lithuania, or Australia, or the U.S. - it happens to the whole planet. An isolated nuclear accident affects a wide area - but doesn't destroy the whole planet we live on.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob T
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:56 pm

Mike - I'll add another comment.

Palo Alto survived Chernobyl, it survived Three Mile Island. And we don't glow in the dark (except for the few who have too many Mojitos at Nola's on a Friday night).

Can Palo Alto as we know it survive a 20-foot rise in the oceans (and, by definition, the Bay) caused by global warming? Palo Alto, and the world as we know it, can survive the worst nuclear accident. It can't survive the doom-sayers predictions about global warming.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Nuke FUD

It's not gonna happen guys - look to other solutions...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob T
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:12 pm

I'm not familiar with the term "Nuke FUD". Could you elaborate, explicitly?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:46 pm

F = Fear

U = Uncertainty

D = Doubt

Lots of fear raised by the nuke community about how we're not going to be able to meet electricity demand w/onukes

Lots of uncertainty created by the nuke community about the chaos that will ensue

Lots of doubt sown by the nuke community about the sufficiency of other solutions.

Why is the EU trying to decommission all nuke plants? Why is there no VC investment in nuke technology?




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 23, 2007 at 12:03 am

we've just passed peak oil
Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob T
a resident of Professorville
on Oct 23, 2007 at 12:07 am

I find this discussion fascinating.

We're talking about global destruction caused by global warming.

Yet - we're still paranoid about nuclear power.

There's no way in hell that a nuclear reactor can blow up in the way we think it can (mushroom cloud, etc.) -- unless it's designed to do that (think Iran, Iraq). We're all conditioned by the "cold war" fears that we grew up with. A reactor just CAN'T do that. It's physically impossible. It may release radiation, unless it's contained. The worst that can happen is that it can overheat, and without appropriate containment apparatus, radioactive steam can escape.

Sounds to me like it's a lot less threatening than "gloabal warming".

If we listen to idiots like Al Gore, we're all dead. I'll take my chances on a few, strategically placed, reactors. I'm not afraid of Uranium or Plutonium. I'm afraid of morons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Footprint
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 23, 2007 at 1:32 am

There's a new study showing that CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere much faster than predicted, possibly because the earth is losing its ability to hold it. See Web Link

Something drastic needs to be done, both in reducing our own release of CO2, but also to spend money figuring out how to capture it back and store it. I'm fairly sure that going nuclear is not the answer here, though, if only because it would scare people from voting for harder measures on fossil fuels.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kyle
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2007 at 8:23 am

Palo Alto is going to waste a lot of money over the next few years just to do the trendy thing. Guess what, it won't have any affect at all on the future of the world's climate. But it's typical of our City to find something useless to waste our money on.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 23, 2007 at 11:23 am

Kyle, Let's pretend you're in a boat that sinking, taking on water in a slow, steady stream. What would you do?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rafael
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 23, 2007 at 11:54 am

Key phrase in Mike's hypothetical: "Let's pretend...".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 23, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Greg,

I believe nuclear power plants use a tremendous amount of water for cooling, and various places in the US are in long term droughts. That said, if they could fix that problem and the problem that no one has ever built a safe nuclear power plant (corrupt governments and businesses do shoddy construction and shoddy operations), this would be a good plan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HugeFootprint
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 23, 2007 at 3:44 pm

If the Guardian article mentioned by footprint is true, then maybe Gore et al should stop excusing their own personally large levels of energy use (private planes, monster homes) with "carbon credits."

I believe that mandatory conservation is a wasteful, dangerous effort incompatible with democracy. Focus on other solutions that may be out there that may allow us to "clean" the environment without altering energy consumption. In the modern world of globalization and democratic ideals, there's no way to accomplish the conservation needed to stave off the most dire of predictions.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 23, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Did someone once say that there was an inverse correlation between the size of one's foot, and the size of one's intelligence?

Rafael, Yes, "let's pretend", the way that environmental naysayers have been pretending that the science behind global warming is a fantasy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 23, 2007 at 6:31 pm

I stand corrected. There is not truly an inverse relationship between the size of one's foot and the intelligence. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. For example, the ratio of foot size to nostril inner dimension (deducting the mass of nasal hair) can be a determining factor. Additionally, if one is a practicing Buddhist, the length of the toenails becomes a factor. Sorry for the confusion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill Walters
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 23, 2007 at 7:18 pm

What??????


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 24, 2007 at 3:11 am

joe,

Yes, nuclear uses a lot of water, as does other types of thermoelectric plants (coal, natural gas, oil). That is why nukes are generally located near large bodies of water. On the coasts ocean water can be used. Of course, the water is not destroyed, so it reenters the hydrologic cycle.

I've often thought that putting nukes on sturdy ocean rigs (like oil drilling platforms) would be a good idea. They would not have close neighbors, cooling water would be abundant, the electricity would be transferred via undersea cable to the grid. We already have a version of that with nuclear subs and ships.

A number of hard core environmental types have come to the conclusion that nukes make sense. New filings for nukes are happening...it is just a matter of time. There is no other realistic answer for the foreseeable future, if one wants to produce electricity with no carbon footprint.

There is no reason to risk a possible catastrophic economic depression by limiting ourselves to luddite prescriptions. We can have a healthy economy, as we move away from fossil fuels. Solar and wind can ramp up as their efficiencies improve.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 24, 2007 at 9:36 am

Greg,

One word: tsunami


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anna
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 24, 2007 at 9:45 am

It's interesting that the same people who complain about "naysayers" blocking needed solutions to urgent problems with picayune objections and complaints when applied to city government, suddenly change their tune, and become naysayers themselves, when commenting on solutions to climate change problems.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Richard
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:10 am

Mike,
Tsunamis are very small when out in deep water. The wave height only becomes large when the water gets shallow. Putting a rig in deep water will make it much more tsunami-proof than putting it on the shore.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Oct 24, 2007 at 10:17 am

The viros will oppose any "solution" because their ultimate position is that man should not change nature in ANY way.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 24, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Richard,

Thanks for pointing out, to Mike, Science 101 about ocean waves. Tsunamis are not even noticeable in relatively deep water. Normal storms, even bad ones, like hurricanes, are manageable with current technology.

Nukes are not opposed for realistic reasons. They are opposed, because they provided an alternative to the luddite schemers. Nukes are the greenest of the green technologies. They provide economic opportunity and growth, while also shutting down the carbon footprint. I wonder if Al Gore is investing any his carbon credit monies into nuclear power?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Oct 24, 2007 at 12:33 pm

BTW, here is an example of a sea-borne nuke that will be built. Supposed to be in service by 2010.

Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Opening alert: Zola, in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 3,470 views

Middle Class Scholarship for incomes up to $150,000!
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,379 views

Men Are Good For Three Things
By Laura Stec | 20 comments | 2,316 views

Two creative lights depart Palo Alto, leaving diverse legacies
By Jay Thorwaldson | 2 comments | 1,349 views

Reducing Council Size? Against
By Douglas Moran | 11 comments | 1,002 views