🚀 go-pugleaf

> wmbjk concluded,
>
> > ... Even [Murray Love] could
> > do most of it, if [he] wanted to. But I'm not holding my breath.
> > I will make a prediction though- any money you spend on
> > conservation or alternative energy will pay off in less time
> > than it will take to convince the public to
> > start building nukes again.
>
"Graham Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:39450471.B3CD3B09@eagle.ca...
> This entails predicting that they aren't convinced today.
> If that part is true, you should be able to substantiate it today.
> I predict you won't.
>

Huh? Are you saying you�ve got some proof that they ARE convinced? One could
get easily get such "proof" in a survey by asking something like "would you
rather have more nuclear power, or freeze in the dark?" One could also get
the opposite results by asking "if having nuclear power entails storing
nuclear waste in your town, are you in favor of that?" Such surveys are
close to meaningless. The proof is in the pudding. How many new nukes are
even in the planning stages where you live? If you could get one to that
point, it would only take another ten or twenty years to satisfy the usual
regulatory hurdles. By which time public opinion might have changed again,
or the thing could even collapse under the weight of its own paperwork. So
promote it all you want, and predict the future 50 years in advance if you
must. I�m sure once the powers that be see that a bunch of guys in this NG
have settled the issue, the dozers will be rolling. :-)

In the meantime, advocating conservation and alternative systems is actually
productive. Equipping new homes with solar hot water heating systems for
example must seem like a joke to the100 year planners, but where the rubber
meets the road, the existing technology works. And it doesn�t pass along any
leftover problems to future generations. I get a laugh out of people calling
such stuff a "hobby". I�d rather be remembered for that "hobby" than for
writing here.


Wayne