<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/21/carbon-free-and-nuclear-free/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/21/carbon-free-and-nuclear-free/</link>
	<description>Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Carlos Rymer</title>
		<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/21/carbon-free-and-nuclear-free/#comment-51297</link>
		<dc:creator>Carlos Rymer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/21/carbon-free-and-nuclear-free/#comment-51297</guid>
		<description>I strongly agree with the results of this paper. In fact, I would argue that we could be climate neutral (includes all other greenhouse gases) by 2030 if we put ourselves to the challenge. We already know how to do it, and can pay for any initial large investments, it's just that we need to calm the fossil fuel lobby to get Washington to take this seriously enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I strongly agree with the results of this paper. In fact, I would argue that we could be climate neutral (includes all other greenhouse gases) by 2030 if we put ourselves to the challenge. We already know how to do it, and can pay for any initial large investments, it&#8217;s just that we need to calm the fossil fuel lobby to get Washington to take this seriously enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R Margolis</title>
		<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/21/carbon-free-and-nuclear-free/#comment-51200</link>
		<dc:creator>R Margolis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:22:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/21/carbon-free-and-nuclear-free/#comment-51200</guid>
		<description>I am going to wait for the main report to see how they work the numbers, however the carbon sequestration backup means replacing nuclear with coal.  With an overwhelming scientific consensus (e.g., AMA Council of Scientific Affairs) that nuclear is safer per unit energy than coal, I am curious why IEER did not choose natural gas with sequestration.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am going to wait for the main report to see how they work the numbers, however the carbon sequestration backup means replacing nuclear with coal.  With an overwhelming scientific consensus (e.g., AMA Council of Scientific Affairs) that nuclear is safer per unit energy than coal, I am curious why IEER did not choose natural gas with sequestration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
