Kasz216 said:
Tispower1 said:
Kasz216 said:
Tispower1 said:
Nuclear power is a good choice for the time being, while other technologies are so far behind.
Yeah, I think I'd agree with the UN there, I think it's incredibly selfish for rich countries to use valuble food land just so they can have a bigger engined SUV, when people in poorer countries starve.
I would help the enviroment if it was planted on land that wasn't absorbing Co2, but it's likely that it will be planted where forest or farmland used to be.
|
Yeah, nuclear power isn't and end all... but it's the best option we currently have for the next 10-15 years.
People who think the problem can be stopped mostly be education have never measured their carbon footprint.
The kind of life you would need live to be "even" with it is much more spartan then people realize.
Amusingly, only one candidate is a Hybrid man. John McCain.
|
1. Definately
2. Our family's is below average for the UK, woo! 
3. Agreed, which is why at the same time I am glad I live in the UK!
4. Haha, Pruis FTW! Or not...
|
Well... in the UK. Even the UK's average isn't exactly... healthy for the enviroment.
When you look at the "ecological footprints" of people. The UK goes a bit farther then the US and is set up a lot better for people to go "off the grid".
Still when you look at your "ecological footprints" and stuff like that... you'd be surprised.
|
It'd probably be horrible :( Seriously though, none of us in "The West" really care at all about the developing nations. But at the same time if we had a significant grasp on their suffering we probably couldn't cope (Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tibet, Georgia, etc), as there is a lot of bad crap going on.
