80 by 50... Possible? (solar, recycle, costs, electric)

[jimboburnsy]

Do you think it is possible to affect an 80% reduction in domestic carbon emissions by 2050?

Please discuss.

[WyoNewk]

In the U.S., yes, if you mean carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration through capture and storage alone could reduce it significantly. Worldwide, I doubt it'll happen, and that's all that really matters. The current administration's efforts to halt America's use of coal for electric generation is probably the worst thing that could be done. What we need are methods to further reduce pollutants and CO2 from being dispersed into the atmosphere -- methods that can be economically used by the U.S. as well as other countries such as China.

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but that's the way I see it.

[thecoalman]

Certainly possible, if we turn into a third world nation doing it is the bigger question.

IMO the policies of subsidizing production and all the other waste would be better spent on R&D. For example the $1 billion being spent on the cash for "clunkers" (what a joke) would have gone further down the road if it was spent on R&D.

[GregW]

It will be possible if we replace coal fired electric generation with nuclear power plants operating in a full fuel recycle system. We also need to capture as much wind and solar energy as possible.

We can survive the increased costs by instituting countervailing tariffs to prevent lower cost goods due to coal fired electricity from being imported at unfairly low costs. We will need to shut down our overseas Empire to pay for the green energy. IMHO it is better to make Kilowatts than Killers anyway.