"But surely you recognise that simply having 650 people opposed to something doesn't make them equally valid to 650 people supporting something?"
It depends who they are.
The point here is that the much-vaunted "consensus" on global warming, with all its implicit and explicit demands with regard to public policy and private behaviour, simply does not exist.
And even if it did, how would proper jobs, proper fatherhood guaranteed by such jobs, energy independence, travel opportunities, and global economic development continue to be secured?
That is what matters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
same applies even when the oil runs out
ReplyDeleteMexico is now a net importer, America has maybe 10-15 years on current domestic consumption and Europe relies on Russia.
So coal and nuclear it is.
ReplyDeleteso I'm presuming your volunteering to go down a mine?
ReplyDeleteOr indeed want nuclear waste in your area? Nuclear is a total dead end, unsafe, expensive and far from the long term option.
Rubbish.
ReplyDeleteAnd mining has moved on.
What WOULD you have instead, anyway?
I'm not against coal mining but the conditions and pay have to be fair and the industry made less polluting. Otherwise it'll be the proles down there whilst you blog about how enobling and soulful such work is.
ReplyDeleteAs a long run option, solar, wind, biofuel and hydrogen are the only way. They require mega investment now but are largely feasible and will generally pay back
The main area where peak oil is hard to overcome is agriculture. But it won't be us going hungry...
"It depends who they are."
ReplyDeleteNo. It depends on the validity of their argument.
Well, that's Anonymous 17:25 ("proles", indeed) taken care of, then.
ReplyDeleteI am that anon, you entirely miss my point. I was using the word 'prole' to highlight your ridiculously romanticised view of coal mining. It is not a pleasant job and I wouldn't wish to do it myself. I strongly suspect you are the same.
ReplyDelete