[adrianN]

I guess we have to disagree here. I prefer we solve the problem with the solutions we can implement right now instead of continuing to increase our emissions hoping for some deus ex machina that fixes the damage we caused. Fusion for example is not a current solution. It's still in the research stage. With adequate funding we might be able to rush to a demo reactor in a decade or two. But by then the damage is done. If we can't prevent the permafrost from releasing its carbon or the Greenland ice sheet from disappearing it is very unlikely that we'll be able to geoengineer our way out of it.

[Rolivaw]

I guess we do disagree. The way I think about it is what gets us to from point A to point B in the least amount of time is best. All other solutions aren’t real not the least because china and India aren’t going to play ball. Also because they aren’t 10x better than the rest (only solar is, just not enough to supply whole world) So we have to be develop something worthwhile and long lasting. Even more nuclear reactors in the meanwhile are a better solution. Predictions of gloom/doom have been around since the 1600s. Everybody in every generation says it’s different this time and it’s really over. I don’t mean to come across as this not being an important issue. I just don’t like the defense of if we don’t do something now we are screwed forever, forcing us to make bad decisions. I’ll take the other side of that bet any day. Predictions in complex systems are mostly wrong Because they don’t take into account future developments and see the world as static which it isn’t.

One more thing. The only reason fusion is 10-20 years away is because we are still focusing on failed technologies (wind and gas) and not throwing enough resources at fusion. If the government took a Los Alamos approach to fusion and nuclear energy in general we could be up and running in 5 years.