Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save

This is a peer reviewed report on the costs of producing ethanol using corn, switch grass and wood. It is also the most comprehensive report done so far. There are many reports out there that are used by the proponents of ethanol but most are not peer reviewed and leave out many aspects relating to the actual production and distribution of ethanol. Again this is a peer revived report by David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek. Both are peer reviewed scientists http://petroleum.berkeley.edu... This is a peer reviewed report on yucca mountain repository. It describes every aspect of the repository and a final conclusion statement made by the scientists who conducted the study. It is clearly stated that it passes all of their minimum requirements to store nuclear waste for ten thousand years. But goes on to say that more should be done to make it even safer and that more reviews are necessary even though it passes inspection. That means it will never get a license to operate as all of the other recommendations will never ever be able to be met. Scroll to page 63 for the conclusion and recommendation statement. http://www.nea.fr... This blog link will be all of the arguments that will prohibit it from ever being opened yet the repository has passed all of the requirements for theses arguments. I find this to be an acceptable link as I am only using it as an example for arguments against the repository, not as facts about the repository. http://ag.state.nv.us... As I stated before Nuclear Energy is a waste of everyone's time and money and effort. It will never be allowed on a large scale to provide power where it is needed. It is a very cheap and clean source of fuel but is made artificially cost prohibitive be endless regulation and protests and lawsuit injunctions that make it not even worth trying. Hydro and wind power are only useful to the surrounding area within a 100 or 200 mile radius. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with these energy sources. The initial start up cost is astronomical and third world countries will not invest in them and are unsuitable for the locations that most third world countries are situated. All electric and hybrid battery cars: The battery life is only guaranteed for 8 years or 80,000 miles and that is prorated. It can cost anywhere from 3,000 to 7,000 dollars to replace the battery in one of these cars. I used car dealer information and I know you don't like them but forums and blogs about people who own or have owned ether type of these vehicles. I found no discrepancies between the dealer information and these blogs when it comes to the price of these batteries. These batteries are filled with the same hazardous acid that is in regular lead acid batteries but ten to 20 times as much. If these cars end up being massed produced there will be hundreds of thousands of these batteries sitting around and many people who would recycle them for metal content will just dump the acid on the ground to get at the metal to make a few bucks. You have to pay a mechanic to remove it and a disposal fee to get rid of it. Many people will not be willing to pay these fees and just dump the battery some where and sell the car as scrap. When these cars get older they will make their way over seas into the third world countries where the only thing people care about over there is having a job and feeding them selves, They will most assuredly drive these cars until they die and dump the battery acid and scrap the battery and car for metal content. "Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life." I don't believe any of the prediction made by global warming alarmists. But this statement proves a very important point. The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves. There is nothing on the horizon that is going to replace fossil fuels in the next 20 years. But the world is going to be flooded and the reaming land will be deserts by then. I use the movie An Inconvenient truth as my source for this coming calamity. It is an acceptable source as it won a Pulitzer Prize but is not peer reviewed. The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves. It is the Environmentalists goal to eliminate these things from the planet in 20 to 50 years or they say the planet is doomed and they must start now!! If they do this millions will die of starvation. Whether or not I believe in global warring being caused by man or not is irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant is the environmentalists movement to eliminate fossil fuel consumption without having a cost effective alternative fuel source in place and a infrastructure to deliver it. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more. They are worthless as alternative fuel sources if fossil fuels are to be eliminated in the next 20 years if we are going to save this planet from the coming calamity predicted by the environmental movement. People are going to start dying by the millions if restrictions on fossil fuel production aren't lifted.