Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Clinton did the right thing by not approving Kyoto.

Kyoto was not good for the US, because it would impose greater restrictions on the US than more poluting countries like China where environment impact by polution is worse. For Kyoto to work, it must be "fair." Kyoto was not fair.

We can increase our laws to lessen polution more, but it will be at the expense of our economy and world competiveness.

Kyoto is unfair to U.S.
By S. Fred Singer
In July 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution opposing any international treaty that would damage the economy by restricting energy usage, raising the cost of fuels for transportation, heating and electricity.

Yet, ironically, Russia's parliament will likely ratify it before the year's end, making Kyoto binding on all ratifiers. Why? The reason may be short-term economic gain, as the protocol permits selling Russia's unused emission rights to Europeans anxious to ease the economic penalties of Kyoto's restrictions.

There's a bigger problem for the US. We represent a very small percentage of the world population, but consume the greatest amount of energy.

The world still has a big problem disposing of spent rods for nuclear plants.

"I don't see how that is a problem." I will disagree. There is a finite supply of fossil fuels in this world, as we produce more and more vehicles that uses it.

"That's no problem. Just extract all the actinides and use them to fuel a fast neutron reactor."
If what you say is true, why haven't we done so?

I'm a bit wary of the use of nuclear power. It's a potential terrorist target,

the waste is a headache to dispose of,

where are you going to get the radioactive materials in the first place

and furthermore there's always the risks of accidents and leaks.

There are at least two problems with your thesis, Oralloy.

First of all, due to the specter of Chernobyl, there is NO politician who will back new Nuclear Plants in the USA.

Secondly, Nuclear Plants, as you may be aware, are used mainly for the production of Electric Power. Our co2 problems come mainly from industrial production outside of electric power generation.

Lately, I've been hearing various sources cite new information that suggests that petroleum may not be a byproduct of dead dinosaurs, fossils, and other compressed organic materials, but may be a natural product of the earth itself and thus not so measurably finite as once assumed. Now mind you these are just people I know nothing about who are saying this, so I am not putting this forward as anything other than idle rumors at the moment. But given how many things scientists have had to back down on with revelation of better information, how interesting would it be if this 'new information' is correct and petroleum is a renewable resource? And how would this affect global policy?

On hydrogen, do any of you tech nuts know how the stability and safety of use compares with gasoline? For those of us unschooled in the use of hydrogen, the vision of the Hindenburg erupting in fire is still vivid.

The Hindenburg didn't burn because it used hydrogen. It had serious safety problems.

Of course, any time you have a vehicle engulfed in fire, any fuel on that vehicle is likely to contribute to the fire.

... [h]Hydrogen could not have caused the explosion. Film footage and witnesses of the crash describe bright yellow flames burning downwards, but hydrogen would only burn in an upward direction with a colourless flame. Several helium-filled airships also crashed and appeared to burn in a similar way.