Undeclared final war

Depends on the impact of the polluted environment. Unless the US corrupts planet Earth enough so that other nations are in crisis and enough suffering for the people, then yes. They will not have to bother delcaring war, since America (Having the best intelligence in the world) would already know that they are under the threat. But US would most likely prevent this build-up. After all, US needs to survive as well. They are not that ignorant.

Originally posted by JanusRook You guys will realize how useless the Kyoto Protocol is, when China starts producing more greenhouse gas then the US. China of course is a signer of the Kyoto Protocol, but falls under the "developing nation" category and as such doesn't have to follow the guidelines listed. This is the reason that the US didn't sign the treaty, since it would cripple our economy against that of China's and other nations that wouldn't have to cut down on emissions.

That is true. Isn't China going to build one coal fired power plant a week for the next 10 years or something?

The kyoto protocol was just a gesture made by the big world players in a huge burst of diplomacy, nobody can enforce it, and only Denmark I believe out of all the signatories is on target to meet their promises. Ireland is a disgrace.

Are we talking of realism or idealism here? We could all don shawls and run round the forest hunting to eat, or we can realistically think about our energy centred society's future.

Well, deal with terrorism as a seperate issue, the energy crisis needs to be addressed, and neither biofuel or solar panels or wind turbines will be enough to replace fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. Simple fact is that the question of nuclear power is already simmering under the surface and will be raised seriously in the near future.

P.S:  Numerous nuclear plants already exist, including Sellafield, so if the danger is already there, how can you use the threat of attack as a valid reason to discount further, more safe and secure nuclear plants? 

Biofuel will be the most likely fuel source to meet our energy needs. Its been touted that as the USA agricultural sector declines that biofuel will take the place that fields of corn once took.

I'd love to get a cave and live a simple life, but few problems remain.

Wave is horribly inefficient, it does not even cover the energy costs of its construction. Wind power is only useful on a house-by-house basis and cannot possibly supply mains power to the large communities of today. Even then it is inefficient and noisy, making it even more undesirable in residential areas. Hydro electricity is, at least, useful. However, it does have quite disastrous effects on the environment in its own ways, and there are very few communities in the world who can gain their entire power needs from hydro-electric sources. Solar power, as it currently exists, is practically useless as a mains power source. What I would like to see, however, is the majority of buildings utilising solar panelling to supplement mains power needs. Solar power merits further research as it at least has the potential to be useful.

There are new forms of geothermal power under development and trial in Australia which I think could supply a decent amount of power. However these methods require very specific circumstances which are unlikely to be useful in most situations.

I think the best possible solution is for nuclear power to firstly be accepted in the developed nations. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer and more efficient than any other means of useful energy production. The next step is for the developed nations to stop discouraging the development of nuclear power in developing nations. If this is not done developing nations will have NO CHOICE but to rapidly increase the number of coal and oil power stations to match their rapidly rising energy requirements.

It is completely idiotic to try to force people who are already living in poor conditions and often starving, to give a stuff about the environment when it means they have no power. It is also hyprocritical. The best approach is to encourage nuclear power in the present, and pour resources into research into disposing of nuclear waste properly, and into the development of clean and renewable energy sources.

I'll join the bandwagon and say nuclear is the best way to go. Nuclear reactors are not terrorist threats in the least, first off, the shielding on the reactor is many feet of thick concrete, not even a jumbo jet crashing into this shield can bring it down. Trust me I've seen films where they tested the integrity of the domes. Besides that the reactor is only dangerous if the rods are in the "on" position. If the rods are "off" there is no danger besides the background radiation, kept sealed by said domes.

Besides I would like to believe terrorists aren't stupid enough to actually attack nuclear reactors. Many states that support terrorist organizations either use nuclear reactors or would like to use them, and if there was an actual attack on one, then world opinion would be so against nuclear power there could be a universal ban, it's just bad policy to screw up your benefactors business.

Also with nuclear waste, either shoot it off into space (trust me even if the launchcraft explodes all that will happen is the waste will fall into the atlantic ocean (assuming Cape Canaveral is the starting point) which isn't terrible devastating to the environment (how many nuclear subs are sunk at the bottom of the ocean?)) or we could designate a "dead area" where a certain zone is created that will be devoid of anything but the decontamination project (I'm a big fan of shoving all that crap into a volcano or other fissure.)

Denis nuclear power is NOT dangerous. The life expectancy of a worker in a coal power plant is alot shorter than one in a nuclear plant. You can fly a plane into a power plant, which is effectively a giant block of concrete and lead. It won't to squat. You can walk into a nuclear reactor and try you hardest to cause a nuclear meltdown and you wouldn't be able to succeed as the computer would stop you.

It is also far from economically inefficient. Alot less uranium has to be mined to fuel a nuclear reactor than coal for a coal power plant. Contrary to popular opinion, building a nuclear reactor is not even particularly difficult.

The nuclear waste issue is easily dealt with in the short term. Storage devices that can hold waste for thousands of years have been developed, and a sea-based launch platform could easily deposit our waste in deep-space. In the long term we can make the space-deposit system more effective or develop a way to neutralise the waste more quickly (accelerate decay).

In addition solar power is basically useless as-is. It takes HUGE amounts of space to create the equivalent output from one coal station. Research needs to be done to make it as efficient as it has the potential to be. Also, you can't exactly "export" electricity except to close neighbours as flow is lost over distances rather rapidly.