Comments

The problem with trying to reduce CO2 is that it is very hard to do. Our renewable options are very expensive and far from being ready to take over a large portion of our energy production. Nuclear might work, but only if we figure out what to do with the radioactive waste, and the reactors still will take a long time to build, and be expensive, and use a lot of water that may not be available. Right now, the only reliable way to reduce CO2 is to use less energy. Everyone knows this, and nobody wants to do it, and that is why the negotiations are going so badly. Any legislation coming out of Congress is likely to be watered down in order to reduce the effects on consumers. But without some kind of pressure, consumers won't change their behavior and use less energy. And I don't think anywhere near enough of our legislators would be willing to commit political suicide in order to force people to conserve energy. CO2 is a lot like government debt: Everyone wants it to go down, but nobody wants to do the work required to make it go down. Nothing is likely to change until we hit a brick wall. When the melting permafrost starts releasing methane on a serious scale, then we're really going to feel the heat.

I would like to see a picture of what someone would look like wearing these contact lenses out on a sunny day. Wouldn't their eyes look kind of dark and spooky?

Or a super-tough rammer satellite that would crash into the debris and deflect it down into the atmosphere.

Bravo to the ACLU! This over-patenting of everything in sight should have been dealt with years ago, but now it has gotten so bad that it is obvious that there is a problem that needs fixing. Sure, it should be OK to patent a TEST for a gene, but not the gene itself, which was created in nature and reproduced naturally. I have been particularly annoyed about the BRCA gene test, as I have a close family member who really would like to know if the breast cancer they had involved genes that could be inherited by their descendents. Is the $3000 test on the patented gene covered by insurance? Ha! Of course not.

This is definitely a strategy worth pursuing on a global scale. A whole lot of our environmental problems would be alleviated if there were just fewer of us. Overfishing, factory farming, habitat destruction, resource overuse, etc. All of these were less of a problem in the past because there were not as many people around doing all those things. And we don't need to make plans to terminate X percentage of the population, we just need to prevent X percentage of reproduction. At this time, they are looking just to stop accidental pregnancies, but to make a real difference, we will have to go farther. But of course that is a big problem. Almost everyone wants to have a big family with lots of happy children and grandchildren. And who would decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn't? And how would they enforce it? But we have to do something. Just like the housing market, the population can't go up forever. Eventually the whole planet will look like 'Blade Runner'.