 | | | 
 | 
Sponsored by the Natural Environment Research Council |  |  | 
|  |  | | (This debate is closed and is a read-only archive) | | We need alternatives to fossil fuels
[4-Jan-2002]
| I must admit, I really liked the post by Max Beran (Reader responses, 20 December). We indeed need a lot more research before we can state boldly that we know what is going on. In that, the IPCC is wrong, even though research that underlies it might not be.
| About Kyoto: I just can say that it focuses too much on one issue. Just reducing greenhouse gas levels (or even rates of increase) isn't enough. Though there will be improvement in efficiency as a side effect, this should be the goal itself. Assuming that technology will come along is not acceptable, and governments and industry can and must invest in improving their use of all forms of energy. This is going to be good for all people, and I cannot imagine that anybody would object to it.
| Reducing greenhouse gas production will just delay the 'finale' for a few years. Finding technologies to replace fossil fuel will stop all increase dead in its tracks. The uncertainty in the predictions and estimated effects gives us a window of opportunity to take time and develop these sources of energy to make them cost-effective and competitive with the current fossil sources. Right now, a lot of 'alternatives' are not alternatives, but expensive replacements that increase cost and are less reliable. That should be changed, not the greenhouse gas emissions as such.
| So Kyoto, though well-meant, is not good, because it diffuses the issue, misdirects the efforts towards short-term reduction of greenhouse gasses, and rushes the application of technology which isn't ready yet. So it is not comparable to recycling, improving energy-efficiency and developing cost-efficient competitive alternative (durable) energy sources. If these sources are clean, then we will end up with a cleaner, leaner economy, which will benefit all people.
| Florens de Wit, Netherlands
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
