Tim,
Because most of our economy is based directly or indirectly on activities that release CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases. Changing that is going to be a massive disruption.
Approx half of the energy consumption is for electricity generation. Changing that (to nuclear or solar) will not cause any disruption to end users. Prices may be higher, but energy prices have been rising with rising cost of fosil fuels anyway, and are only going to continue to increase.
OTOH, nuclear and solar, while having high upstart cost, the fuel is free or virtually free. Not subject to increases that are inevitable with fosil fuels.
Transportation (another major component) is trickier. Messing with that excessively may cause massive disruption - if done prematurely, before alternative energy sources are perfected (cheap electricity + batteries, hydrogen storage, fuel cells etc).
What exactly are your proposing? Some people have proposed slashing CO2 output within a generation or even within a decade.
Doing it within a generation is feasible. France has done it. While the environmentalist and other anti-nuclear alarmists left us with current double CO2 production (vs. going virtually all nuclear as France has done), the difference is a generation, or 30 years. Enviros never stopped France, and now France is up to 78% nuclear. The US is stuck at less than 20%.
I don't see it as disruptive to repeat what France has done, especially with benefit of extra 30 years of research, and with rising prices of fossil fuels.
If 50% of all CO2 emissions are from power generation and it can increase from 20% to say 80%, that's more than 33% overall reduction of in CO2 emissions, just from shifting electricity generation to nuclear, not even touching other things such as transportation.
Much shorter term goals, such as 10 years are more dangerous to the economy, because the economy is like a super-tanker. It can't turn on a dime, and if you try to make it so, it can result hasty radical measures, that will likely prove destabilizing.
Joe |
