posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:24 PM
Ignorance. The alternatives are considerably weak, expensive and ineffecient; of which offer very little incentive to use on industrial and
commercial scales.
Cutting down trees, depleting top soil and creating hazardous concentrations of fertilizers near ground and surface water drinking areas are not a
solution to any illfated notion of a carbon dioxide problem.
Electrical generation is induced by firing coal to heat water and run through turbines and generators, not burning oil. In poorer countries such as
Iran and Mexico this may be the case, but in the developed world coal fire and nuclear are the primary components of meeting electrical demand.
If only I had a nickel for everytime I picked up a book at the library that cited the end of oil 50 years ago, I would be a rich man. Fact is, you
have to drill to find the oil. Leading scientist and more cannot predict, no matter how much they say, the end of oil production. These people are
desperate, screaming for attention and want money but are too lazy to find a better means of obtaining money.
What would you suggest we use that does not produce carbon dioxide (whatever it is supposed to mean) or any chemicals (have no idea what you are
getting at)?