This started as a response to Michael Tobis in this thread, but seemed worthy of moving to its own post. Photo: pcesarperez Michael said: "I started by defending sequestration on the grounds of the conventional wisdom that renewables do not seem adequate for the whole energy picture ..." This is a common refrain. You frequently hear people say that we "have to" continue using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future because we "can't" meet our energy needs with renewables. Naturally, if that's true, the debate is over. Can't is can't; impossible is impossible. Or is it? What's known as our …
Get Grist in Your Inbox
What is climate change doing to our mental health?
Amory Lovins’ high-tech home skimps on energy but not on comfort
This little fox loves transit. Should we tell him he just missed his stop?
Millions alive today would have to die before the paleo diet could take over
Meet the Andy Griffith who’s going after fracking polluters