Current policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are inadequate for dealing with the threat that they pose - for every emission that America alone reduced (and we have reduced a lot, we are back at 1992 levels) China added that and more, and India would also like to have air conditioning.
Yet anyone who contends there has to be a hard stop on fossil fuels has basically eliminated themselves from a rational policy discussion - the energy density of gasoline is unmatched and we would need to create a nuclear power plant worth of clean energy every day for the next 50 years to meet our energy needs right now.
However, one fuel could give us the time it takes to create viable alternatives to fossil fuels - no, solar and wind are not viable. Solar will be but there are basic research efforts that need to be done first. Wind is a waste of time and money and its failure will jade the public on the idea that science knows what they are talking about if it keeps being subsidized.
Just using less coal would be what we need. Shale gas emits 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal, so if countries like China and India made the switch on a large scale that has a huge impact on the trajectory of global carbon dioxide emissions. The coal industry does not want to hear about shale gas but well-paid lobbyists for environmental corporations and their anti-science activists are helping the coal industry by insisting the only solution is to eliminate all current fuels. If they truly care about the environment, they would embrace steps to curb emissions now while we plan for a low-carbon future.
Shale Gas to the Climate Rescue By Alan Riley, New York Times
