I'm not sure that you were misleading, I think I was thinking along a different path than you. I recently read a book you might enjoy, by the way: 'Deep Economy' by Bill McKibben. It doesn't bring up anything earth shatteringly new, but it does synthesize some ideas about global warming, peak oil, globalization, etc. to make a potent argument for more local economies(one that does not involve trucking lettuce from California to Toronto in January!!!). His feeling, (and for what it's worth, mine) is that we're going to see a radical shift in how we need to do things in the next 10-40 years, and we can either get moving on making the changes with a little discomfort, or have them painfully thrust upon us.

Regards,
M. Graham
Exactly and thank you for the recommendation. I'll look into Deep Economy book by Bill McKibben. Since the economy seems driven by fossil fuel overuse, I'll have to side with your thoughts. 'Waste' seems to be our biggest gross national product and any interest in oil conservancy seems void of any interest. When recommendations are conceived, such as walking or biking to work, New oil paved pathways are made to accommodate our delicate conditioning.
The science is beyond dispute.
So now it is "Science that" can't be questioned??? image
The barrier is not scientific possibility, it's economic disincentive, and societal status quo. - "A precedent embalms a principle." Benjamin Disraeli 1804 - 1881
I agree with your assumption but disagree that the effort should not be attempted.

The "overuse of oil" is staggering and needs to be curbed. MO

I find the problem is not so much consumer demand or marketings attempts to satisfy consumers but more so in the overpopulation of consumers. Globalization is a pipe dream that big business uses to fuel profits. Even 'Farmer' markets seem stocked with goods from far away. (Not different goods-just foreign goods that uses tremendous amounts of fuel to transport) and most are on the verge of being overripe garbage because it was harvested way too soon or bad for the nations health because of poor manufacturing. MO

Is Nuclear Power the way Forward?

I think John diverted the topic with
Perhaps we will discover other ways of generating energy and nuclear power may not be needed. There is enough energy all around us to sustain us - we need to find out how to tap into it.

John
otherwise I seem to be the culprit when I wanted to conserve oil consumption. In any case, I think before we move into a Nuclear powered world we should use up all other possibilities.

Sear's
Oddly, I happen to think hydro-electric is one of the better sources of power, commercial & otherwise.
But it seems to me, in the U.S. we're tearing down dams faster than we're putting them up.
We have some major dams here in Arizona and still we need to import electrical power from all over the N-west. (It's the dry heat )

The true answer MO is to decrease human populations but that's another thread. image

image