But that would be bad for GDP growth?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

I could have put it better.  There are many ways we can reduce greenhouse gases, including conservation.  But there is no way to mitigate them on a large scale without also continuing to use nuclear energy and without more nuclear plants.  If new nuclear plants are not built, new coal plants will.  And in regard to dangers to the environment and public health, coal outstrips nuclear by far.

It's true that we could use less energy.  But I have yet to hear from a blogger who has sworn off using his computer.  And hardly anyone (in the US,anyway) is willing to forego driving a car.

Here's a good summary of what can be done to mitigate greenhouse gases using a variety of solutions:

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/CMI_Stab_Wedges_Movie.swf

In theory yes. And by a lot.

In practice no. At least nukes are slightly politically possible.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

Jimmy Carter staked his presidency on that notion.  He walked to his inauguration rather than riding in a limosine.  He turned down thermostats and put on sweaters.  He installed solar panels on the White House.  He was one of our truly great American presidents, and one of the most underestimated.  He was right about energy thirty years before anyone else.  And for his sins we replaced him after a single term with a smooth talking demagogue who had parlayed a mediocre film career into a pretty good gig playing a governor in California.

We all watch with growing concern the global calamity that is the George W Bush presidency, but almost everything that concerns us about him began with Reagan.  We all ponder with varying degrees of sadness and anger the current reality compared to what might have been if Al Gore had taken office in 2001.  Imagine how very different the world might be now if Jimmy Carter had served a second term.  The alternate reality with respect to energy policy alone is enough to boggle the mind.


Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

About 0-10 %, depending on the weather and the current level of political folly.

Sigh.  Wish we could all just move to Sweden.

Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?