Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,678 posts)
3. Yes. To the extent "lose their status" means "serious economic harm"
Fri May 11, 2012, 11:14 AM
May 2012

What Smilio likely heard was a report from their economic ministry predicting a 5% GDP decline and doubled electrical rates over the coming years.

surveys of industry directly shows strong support for a go very slow approach.

That's nice (true or not)... but how is that relevant to the question? Whether the decision is popular or unpopular is entirely divorced from the undeniable fact that it's a costly one. Of course significant power shortages will have an impact on production and the dramatic climb in fossil generation will be costly (in more ways than one).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Inventor promotes low-pow...»Reply #3