Quote:
Originally Posted by Relander Could you provide some examples? If you mean nuclear power: it's not the best choice to cut down CO2-emissions but definately better than continuing with coal or oil power.
"International Linear Collider" sounds very good and 6,6 billion dollars compared to its positive potential. Besides, the expenses can be shared. |
I meant the latest attempts to force the car-industry in Germany to reduce C02 emissions by law or things like subsidies for solar technology.
Cars produce only only a very small percentage of the overall production of CO2 (less than half a percent), especially if you take only those that drive in Germany. Besides, you can't just turn a car into a zero-emission vehicle in a day, right now the technology which reduces emissions is an a stage where it costs so much that people would just buy cars from a foreign company.
It is similar with solar technology-subsidies: it may look good at first glance, but if you consider the energy that you have to invest to create solar panels right now you will soon find out that there are other projects which would be more effective and should therefore receive subsidies instead (for example geothermal-energy).
Instead of creating laws which dish out penalties for those companies that refuse to do what some politicians think is good it would be better to create incentives based on scientific evaluation of technologies.