I don't know. Wy would you not want to build a huge solar array to power cities? you will still make money. Lots of it, in fact

" In fact, I'd be bound to by corporate law. "
no, you would not be.

Post Carboniferous era, trees are carbon neutral.

" The USA research team, for example, recommends something like a 50% reduction in per capita energy intensity by 2050. That is flat out incompatible with human nature in a healthy economy and society. "
we can, and it's not.
Are you confused on energy intensity?

The energy intensity of GDP (Energy/GDP) can be reduced through energy efficiency and conservation
measures in energy end-use sectors (passenger and goods transportation, residential and commercial
buildings, and industry). We refer to “energy efficiency” measures as the technical improvements of
products and processes; we use the term “energy conservation” to describe a broader set of measures,
including structural and behavioral changes, that lead to lower levels of energy consumed per unit of
GDP. Examples of energy efficiency and conservation measures include: improved vehicle
technologies, smart urban design, and optimized value chains (for passenger and goods
transportation); improved end-use equipment, architectural design, building practices, and construction
materials (in residential and commercial buildings); improved equipment, production processes,
material efficiency, and re-use of waste heat (in industry).

Yes, we can cut it in half by 2050. note, the formula context is CO2 reduction so call all currently uses of petroleum energy in half. it's from 3.1* 'The Drivers of CO2 emissions.'

CO2 emissions = Population x (GDP/Population) x (Energy/GDP) x (CO2/Energy)

*3.11 coming soon for improved networking! *rimshot*

We can build a large enough solar panel array to power every daytime use of our power, every day.
So that alone would eliminate all daylight non clean power.

That's not even getting into industrial thermal, and using dams as storage to make it 24 hour power.

There is no engineering issues with this.
Sure, it would cost 40 billion. so what? hell; 100 billion? long term its a hell of a deal.

There is no reason the federal government can't start building plants. In fact, I think ONLY the government should build, maintain and run nuclear plants. Lets remove the profit motive to delaying proper storage and maintenance.
Smaller, simpler, safer.

If we can pipe oil across the continent, then I think we can pipe water inland.

You should flesh that out as a business plan and shop around for money.
Yes I am serious, it's a good idea.

IT's a PR issue:

"This can be changed, but it's expensive."
yeah, but where is the money going? workers, engineers, entrepreneurs, inventors.

How about:
This can be changed, and it's a job creator.

Why not? we did it with aresols.
Remove the false controversy, and we could do it.

I'm sorry the truth hurts you.

Nothing he said is factually incorrect. If it makes you so angry, maybe you should focus on the issue and not the messenger?

at 1000 PPM CO2 make people drowsy and give them head aches.
How well will be able to function then?

"as the couple of western civilizations together produce 75% of the green house gases"
nope.

" But killing the whole of USA 50 years ago would change the current situation dramatically."
becasue the countries the would rise up would be all enviro friendly and not use petroleum?

" But you do know that China has a single child policy since nearly 40 years, you do or not?"
not any more. They stopped it a few years ago.

No I'm not advocating killing anyone.
anyway: You notice Chinas population kept going up over the lat 40 years? it was 600 million in 1960, and now it's 1.3 billion.

One child doesn't seem to have been enforced that hard. Yes I am aware of the tragedies. My point is, it still went up.

"Or just some stupid fag? "
stop it.

"but about how many it will kill. compaed to other energy sources.'

Modern reacors can be built that use current waste. The byproducts from tjhos reacors return to background radiation level in 200-500 years. not half life, back ground levels.

I can tell you hav no idea how nuclear wast is stored.
If we teleport all the nuclear waste into the Marianas trench, you wouldn't even raise the radiation in the sea by by a measurable amount.
But that would be waste full when we have the tech here to use it.

How much nuclear waste do you think there is?

Coal has rendered more land useless the nuclear, by a long shot.

Modern nuclear power is incredibly safe and can be made to use modern nuclear 'waste.'

You notice the plant with issues use designs that where created before plate tectonics was a science?

wrong.
" 2. Electric cars may be simpler but with the current state of batteries it's doubtful they are actually more efficient."
Even in states with the dirtiest power, they are a saving of CO2 and more efficient. Country wide the efficiency ranges from 20% to 60% more efficient.

". Don't tell me to conserve energy when we have 60+ days over 100 degrees..."
nothing about that make sense.

coal is horrible. It puts giga tonnes of poison in the air. so no, it's not cheap it's just the costs are offset with time.

To damn bad.

OR they build nuclear power that's really hard to make weapons from.