Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Italy referendum rejects nuclear power, water privatisation and legittimo impedimento

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Riccardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-11
    Posts
    220
    Points
    3,309
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,309, Level: 16
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 141
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Italy referendum rejects nuclear power, water privatisation and legittimo impedimento



    Thank you to all that voted in this referendum! Italy woke up and from today our future is a little bit less dark! And it is a clear signal to the government!


    VICTORY!!! Participation came back to be important!

    P.s. This is a great proof by young people and the web network...Things are changing!


    This is from BBC:



    Italians have turned out in force for a referendum that looks set decisively to reject nuclear power, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has admitted.
    With turnout exceeding the necessary 50%, Mr Berlusconi said "we must probably say goodbye to... nuclear power" and commit to renewable energy.
    Mr Berlusconi had wanted to restart nuclear plants shut in the 1980s.
    He called for a boycott of the vote - but seems set for defeat on all four referendum questions.
    According to figures from the interior ministry, turnout was running at 57% - a firm rejection of Mr Berlusconi's boycott plea.
    Early results suggested the electorate had voted overwhelmingly for the repeal of laws brought in by the prime minister.
    'Clear message' Pierluigi Bersani, leader of the centre-left Democratic Party, called it "an extraordinary day", which reinforced the poor performance of Mr Berlusconi's candidates at local elections last month.
    "The government and Berlusconi really have to reflect on this. After the local elections and now the referendums, it would be irresponsible for them not to," he said, adding that the prime minister should resign.
    Anti-nuclear campaigners say the Fukushima disaster in Japan helped sway public opinion against nuclear power, which Italians rejected in a referendum soon after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
    Italy, like Japan, is prone to earthquakes, but the government had said nuclear power was needed to supply about 20% of electricity by 2020.
    Germany and Switzerland have both recently announced that they will phase out nuclear power in the coming decades, while in other countries, like Britain and France, support remains strong.
    Italians were also being asked two questions on the privatisation of water supplies, and another on whether government ministers can be exempted from court cases.
    The final question is especially pertinent to Mr Berlusconi, who is currently facing four separate trials.
    The special immunity granted to him by parliament has recently been struck down in the courts, and Mr Berlusconi has agreed to attend court when not engaged on important business.
    But he has missed several hearings, and did so again on Monday, meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Riccardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-11
    Posts
    220
    Points
    3,309
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,309, Level: 16
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 141
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    http://www.repubblica.it/politica/20.../1/?ref=HREA-1

    This is a link with the homepages of many international websites! =)

  3. #3
    Passione Mediterranea Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    julia90's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-10
    Posts
    1,076
    Points
    18,190
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,190, Level: 41
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 760
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Ethnic group
    Tuscan
    Country: Italy



    that's a great economic loosing for italy expecially on the Nuclear part, but also about the water, the gestion should be to privates, with the control of the state, to be more efficient

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Riccardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-11
    Posts
    220
    Points
    3,309
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,309, Level: 16
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 141
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by julia90 View Post
    that's a great economic loosing for italy expecially on the Nuclear part, but also about the water, the gestion should be to privates, with the control of the state, to be more efficient
    I think there's a wrong idea of efficiency...Neoliberism is falling down, why should we always arrive late? ^^

  5. #5
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    3,962
    Points
    24,218
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,218, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 332
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    I'm not too crazy about nuclear power. Statistically it's not really dangerous, but it turned to be very expensive.

    I'm just curious if politicians and economists figured out if Italy or Germany (scrapped nuclear too) will have enough power for the future from traditional or new sources. The rolling black outs are very unpleasant.

    I think nuclear will be fazed out very slowly, slower than politicians promise. Solar and wind will be expensive and without controversies for a long time to come, and are subsidized all the time. I hope new discoveries of gas fields will be substantial for European's growth, because the cheap and almost ubiquitous coal is very dirty.

    Unfortunately we don't have good alternatives at the moment. We might need all the energy sources we can get for next 50 years or so. People may wish for a better way but it's just a wish in today's reality.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Riccardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-11
    Posts
    220
    Points
    3,309
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,309, Level: 16
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 141
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    I'm not too crazy about nuclear power. Statistically it's not really dangerous, but it turned to be very expensive.

    I'm just curious if politicians and economists figured out if Italy or Germany (scrapped nuclear too) will have enough power for the future from traditional or new sources. The rolling black outs are very unpleasant.

    I think nuclear will be fazed out very slowly, slower than politicians promise. Solar and wind will be expensive and without controversies for a long time to come, and are subsidized all the time. I hope new discoveries of gas fields will be substantial for European's growth, because the cheap and almost ubiquitous coal is very dirty.

    Unfortunately we don't have good alternatives at the moment. We might need all the energy sources we can get for next 50 years or so. People may wish for a better way but it's just a wish in today's reality.
    Can you imagine a country that doesn't manage to finish the works of a highway in 60 years because of the "strange characters" hidden behind the management? This is Italy...How can be managed something dangerous like the nuclear? I tremble only thinking about it...

    We are going toward sustainable developement, there are a lot of solutions! ;)

  7. #7
    Banned Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-11
    Posts
    142


    Country: France



    I hope new discoveries of gas fields will be substantial for European's growth
    The future has a name: ITER... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER ..."nuclear fusion" is possible...

    I think nuclear will be fazed out very slowly, slower than politicians promise
    30 years for to disassemble a nuclear central...

    Can you imagine a country that doesn't manage to finish the works of a highway in 60 years because of the "strange characters" hidden behind the management? This is Italy...
    ......

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Riccardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-11
    Posts
    220
    Points
    3,309
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,309, Level: 16
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 141
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by VonRoust View Post
    The future has a name: ITER... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER ..."nuclear fusion" is possible...

    30 years for to disassemble a nuclear central...

    ......
    Didn't you know?

    Look at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostrada_A3_%28Italy%29

  9. #9
    Banned Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-11
    Posts
    142


    Country: France



    I don't know if i must laugh or cry...

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Riccardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-11
    Posts
    220
    Points
    3,309
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,309, Level: 16
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 141
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by VonRoust View Post
    I don't know if i must laugh or cry...
    Cry if you think about the highway (and about all that is behind that), laugh if you think that luckly we won't have the nuclear...

  11. #11
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    3,962
    Points
    24,218
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,218, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 332
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Riccardo View Post
    Can you imagine a country that doesn't manage to finish the works of a highway in 60 years because of the "strange characters" hidden behind the management? This is Italy...How can be managed something dangerous like the nuclear? I tremble only thinking about it...

    We are going toward sustainable developement, there are a lot of solutions! ;)
    What are your top solutions?

  12. #12
    aimless wanderer Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    Mzungu mchagga's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-10
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    639
    Points
    5,705
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,705, Level: 22
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 345
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    What are your top solutions?
    There is none!
    But according to the supporters, we now have the pressure for technical innovation, which in just a short time will make us leading powers in energy research and one step closer to the solution of all world energy problems. I hope they are right. Hallelujah!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Riccardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-11
    Posts
    220
    Points
    3,309
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,309, Level: 16
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 141
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    What are your top solutions?
    The assumption is that everywhere in the world the use of nuclear energy is strongly decreased...This is a fact.
    Many people want nuclear because they think it's "cheap", but it has high costs and the risks are so high that no economic business can justify them...Just think about Italy...As I told you before some people want nuclear without knowing who will be behind it...We could see cases like the highway I posted you before. Plus Italy is a high seismic risk country...Nothing let me feel secure with nuclear in Italy. Mostly the government wanted to speculate with nuclear energy and thought that people didn't understand not only the risks of nuclear energy, but the costs too...
    I'm not absolutely contrary, but it is evident that in Italy nothing would have changed if not the risks. And I think we must change, but if I have to choose to stay this way or get the nuclear, considering that it is not free-risk and free-costs, I prefer nothing to change.

    But I think that there are solution, and solutions must be discussed in international fields.
    Gas emission is a great problem for climate change and we're destroying the environment. But they can be controlled, that's the difference, and that's the concept of sustainable developement. For me the best stays in two great points:

    1) Gas emission control, with defined limits of total emission. Countries can satisfy their demands of more energy with the sell of emission quotas. And the pro-country quota can be calculated by population and geographical position of the country (Canada for instance needs more energy than Mexico because of the weather, but Mexico has much more population). In this way countries that exceed their quotas can sell them and earn credits, while other countries don't have the "impact" of a drastic reduction of their quotas.

    2) More energy culture. There is too few education about climate and pollution problems. People, expecially in the rich countries, still don't know that we have common destinies, and if we don't stop our great quantity of emission the problems won't be outsourced to other far countries...A small part of the problems can be solved by common people themselves..The first step can be adopting individually the use of renewable energies...It would be a lot, and it's costs are close to 0.

    There are solutions...Who think that there's no solution I think it's not disposed to talk in a "global" level, but this is necessary today. If we think that all the problems can be solved by nuclear we are far from any solution:

    1) Because it's not true, and I explained why in my opinion.
    2) The risks are too high and too dangerous because history teaches us that men can't control EVERYTHING. And in the case of nuclear the risks are terrible.
    3) Nuclear energy can't be adopted by a large set of countries...And there will be much more imbalance...

    Maybe I trust so much in international dialogue and search of solution...But step by step the countries are understanding that we need shared solution. U.S.A. and China (later) soon will be alone in their unilateral policy and they'll start to change something. Because it's necessary to them too.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    22-01-11
    Posts
    127
    Points
    2,234
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,234, Level: 13
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 216
    Overall activity: 8.0%


    Country: Italy



    Yeah, I enjoy this moment like you (I voted ;) ). It was 16 years that every referendum in Italy hadn't acheved the quorum. Yesterday Italians have showed the world, in my opinion, that Italians have a strong ambientalist soul and we can be proud! We are one of the few countries in the Western World that has always rejected the nuclear energy, becouse we have put the interest of ecology over our own business, the health of the whole world over personal/national egoism.
    Italians want clean energy, I am sure that new forms of energies have already been discovered, but in my opinion there are many interests under their low diffusion.
    Chernobyl and Fukushima have clearly demonstered that nuclear power is NOT the future. They can guarantee a lot of energy for long time and with few risks, but a single error is enough to destroy a whole country and an error, first or later, happens.

    Now the question is: what could the single person do for improving the global enviromental status?
    A good step could be to place solar panels in private habitations, while the firms could install the Sistemi di Gestione Ambientale (Systems of Ambiental Management) http://www.uninform.com/pdf/pdf_news/sis_ges_amb.pdf

    Other opinions?

  15. #15
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Riccardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-11
    Posts
    220
    Points
    3,309
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,309, Level: 16
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 141
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Riccardo View Post
    2) More energy culture. There is too few education about climate and pollution problems. People, expecially in the rich countries, still don't know that we have common destinies, and if we don't stop our great quantity of emission the problems won't be outsourced to other far countries...A small part of the problems can be solved by common people themselves..The first step can be adopting individually the use of renewable energies...It would be a lot, and it's costs are close to 0.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sybilla View Post
    Now the question is: what could the single person do for improving the global enviromental status?
    A good step could be to place solar panels in private habitations
    , while the firms could install the Sistemi di Gestione Ambientale (Systems of Ambiental Management) http://www.uninform.com/pdf/pdf_news/sis_ges_amb.pdf

    Other opinions?
    We said more or less the same thing! =)

  16. #16
    Banned Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    10-05-11
    Posts
    142


    Country: France



    ...we now have the pressure for technical innovation...
    ...But I think that there are solution, and solutions must be discussed in international fields...
    ...Maybe I trust so much in international dialogue and search of solution...But step by step the countries are understanding that we need shared solution...
    ...nuclear power is NOT the future...
    I repeat: Nuclear Fusion is possible, we will can use it in 20 or 30 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

  17. #17
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    3,962
    Points
    24,218
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,218, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 332
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    The assumption is that everywhere in the world the use of nuclear energy is strongly decreased...This is a fact.
    Many people want nuclear because they think it's "cheap", but it has high costs and the risks are so high that no economic business can justify them...Just think about Italy...As I told you before some people want nuclear without knowing who will be behind it...We could see cases like the highway I posted you before. Plus Italy is a high seismic risk country...Nothing let me feel secure with nuclear in Italy. Mostly the government wanted to speculate with nuclear energy and thought that people didn't understand not only the risks of nuclear energy, but the costs too...
    I'm not absolutely contrary, but it is evident that in Italy nothing would have changed if not the risks. And I think we must change, but if I have to choose to stay this way or get the nuclear, considering that it is not free-risk and free-costs, I prefer nothing to change.
    These are valid points, and for same reasons I’m not too crazy about nuclear power.
    On other hand so far we had only two serious incidents, that’ will make areas of 50 kilometers around polluted nuclear plants unusable for a 100 years. Newer safety features on new nuclear plants will make these incidents impossible to happen in the future.
    Even if Europe is taking the reactors off line, China and India will have no choice but build hundreds of them to accommodate energy demand.

    But I think that there are solution, and solutions must be discussed in international fields.
    Gas emission is a great problem for climate change and we're destroying the environment. But they can be controlled, that's the difference, and that's the concept of sustainable developement. For me the best stays in two great points:

    1) Gas emission control, with defined limits of total emission. Countries can satisfy their demands of more energy with the sell of emission quotas. And the pro-country quota can be calculated by population and geographical position of the country (Canada for instance needs more energy than Mexico because of the weather, but Mexico has much more population). In this way countries that exceed their quotas can sell them and earn credits, while other countries don't have the "impact" of a drastic reduction of their quotas.

    If it come to climate, it always changes. Even if people don’t do anything there are Ice Ages and wormer peoriods, that we live in right now. I think you reffering to anthropogenic climate change. That is still not settled. We don’t even know how much carbon dioxide emission changes global temperature. Some scientists estimate changes ten times smaller than others. I would say, let’s not panic, let’s research a little bit longer.
    Even if it comes to worst scenario, and you will cut your all emissions of CO2 in Italy, the Asia with 3 billion people will spew so much in atmosphere that it won’t matter much what you will do, period.

    The level of CO2 is actually a very interesting problem. It is only 0.3% of all gasses and it will reach 0.6 in 100 years of farther industrialization. It it too much you think?

    We know that when dinosaurs lived on planet there was 5 to 10 times more CO2. Yes the level was about 2% of all gasses. Yet Earth was much greener place than today.
    At beginning of earth CO2 was a dominant gas on this planet, more than 50% and no oxygen.
    It happened that because of green life on earth, the plants sucked almost all CO2 from earth and deposited it under ground as coal, gas and oil. What is really left is 0.3%. Well, go another 10 million years in the future and it will be all gone. Yes, no CO2 left in the ear! At this time the green life, and other on earth, will be gone. No CO2 = no life on earth.
    Therefore the question is, is it so bad that people will unleash a fresh supplied of CO2 in the air? I’m pretty sure the green plants won’t complain about this, right?

    There is also a case of next Ice Age. We know it’s coming soon. The warm period we are lucky to enjoy right now is about to end. The new Ice Age will hold grip for 120 thousand years. Where will Europeans and North Americans go to live??? So, maybe there is a hope, if we release enough of CO2 we can avoid next Ice Age? Should we?

    2) More energy culture. There is too few education about climate and pollution problems. People, expecially in the rich countries, still don't know that we have common destinies, and if we don't stop our great quantity of emission the problems won't be outsourced to other far countries...A small part of the problems can be solved by common people themselves..The first step can be adopting individually the use of renewable energies...It would be a lot, and it's costs are close to 0.
    What cost is 0? If cost is 0 than why the poorest countries can’t adopt it first?

    There are solutions...Who think that there's no solution I think it's not disposed to talk in a "global" level, but this is necessary today. If we think that all the problems can be solved by nuclear we are far from any solution:

    I’m really appreciating your long right up, but I’m still to hear your ideas for solutions.

    Do you think its solar or wind power?

    Don’t take me wrong. I love to breath clean air, and drink clean water. I would love us to have unlimited power of clean energy. I read science and I would first installed solar panel on my house in Canada if it made an economic and environmental sense.
    The problem is that new technologies are very expensive and unreliable. These are the main problem why they are not in wide use these days.

    Tell us what solutions you have in mind. Maybe I’m missing something?

    On a bright side, there is a huge amount of energy that comes from the sun constantly. If we just could grab 1% of solar energy that comes to earth every day, it would be enough for our global needs for a whole year. Isn't is something?

  18. #18
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    3,962
    Points
    24,218
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,218, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 332
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by VonRoust View Post
    I repeat: Nuclear Fusion is possible, we will can use it in 20 or 30 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
    I hope you're right VonRoust. We've been waiting for this for 40 years already!
    I'm a bit sceptically at the moment. This is what scientists were promising about nuclear fission power: cheep, ubiquitous and for ever...and look at the mess now.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    these stupid people who think Italy can build a nuclear plant.....where.........only places in Italy are the heal of Italy and on the french italian border, the rest is earthquake area, unstable lands or flood lands, earthquake area runs from north east alps ( remember friuli earthquake) through to marche, then abruzzo, to campania , down to sicily and up to the island of stromboli.

    Italy have to suck up to france to buy cheap power

  20. #20
    aimless wanderer Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    Mzungu mchagga's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-10
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    639
    Points
    5,705
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,705, Level: 22
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 345
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    There is also a case of next Ice Age. We know it’s coming soon. The warm period we are lucky to enjoy right now is about to end. The new Ice Age will hold grip for 120 thousand years. Where will Europeans and North Americans go to live??? So, maybe there is a hope, if we release enough of CO2 we can avoid next Ice Age? Should we?
    Err... can you explain and justify this in the next years to the people living in Oceania, Bangladesh, India, Carribean, Peru, Sahara region, Arctic region, tornado/hurricane/tyclone/taifoon areas etc... those who right at the moment don't have the rights or cash for making a new living in disaster free areas?

    BTW I'm not sure if we have the same metabolism as dinosaurs. And I can't remember anyone complaining of a mass plant extinction in case of CO2 emissions.

  21. #21
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    3,962
    Points
    24,218
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,218, Level: 47
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 332
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Mzungu mchagga View Post
    Err... can you explain and justify this in the next years to the people living in Oceania, Bangladesh, India, Carribean, Peru, Sahara region, Arctic region, tornado/hurricane/tyclone/taifoon areas etc... those who right at the moment don't have the rights or cash for making a new living in disaster free areas?

    BTW I'm not sure if we have the same metabolism as dinosaurs. And I can't remember anyone complaining of a mass plant extinction in case of CO2 emissions.


    As you can see I was actually trying to keep the status quo, avoiding next ice age with extra production of CO2. There wouldn’t be a change, at least a big one.
    The only problem with geo-engineering is that no one is able to predict precisely what will happen. We still know too little. We are only about 100 years into climate research, and it is a very complicated system.
    Even without human help the climate fluctuates from Ice Age to Warm (like current) periods. We still don’t know why it happens, and why for last 10 million years.
    I would be glad if CO2 could do the trick and help people to regulate global temperatures to avoid Ice Ages. With new technologies in the future we might be able release global warming or cooling gasses or water vapors in big amounts and suck them out from atmosphere in mater of months. At least to counteract natural clime change occurrences like ice ages or cooling periods due to big volcano explosions. Just one Pinatubo eruption in 1991 lowered world temperature by 1C next year, this is huge. Should we mention super volcanoes? They are known to be 100 times bigger than Pinatubo.
    How fair is it to the any peoples on this planet? Not sure, I’m not a god. ;)

    People generally don’t like changes, they are threatened by them. Maybe I’m an optimist not seeing much danger to life on earth if we double or triple the CO2 level. Definitely there will be changes, possibly big ones, but nothing really catastrophic some “experts” envisioned. There will be no run away effect and end of life as we know it, period. Just some changes, but what’s new?

    I don’t think we will be able to avoid doubling CO2 level anyway. Just look how Asia and the rest of the world are growing and burning fossil fuels. What’s left is to adopt,... and be an optimist.
    Definitely our earth will be greener.

Similar Threads

  1. Denmark to hold new referendum on euro in 2010
    By TheCaptain in forum European Economy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-12-09, 20:09
  2. The water crisis and enviroment health
    By Tokis-Phoenix in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-06-06, 21:25
  3. Water Fluoridation: Is it Moral?
    By Mitsuo in forum Opinions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 19-05-06, 00:39
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 23-04-06, 14:39
  5. sapphire: water that isn't wet
    By den4 in forum World News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15-04-04, 15:43

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •