Pretty O'Neill cylinders, but...

Lucio wrote:

>I think that there are enough hydrocarbons to keep this planet running
even well beyond this century.

I'd agree, and I have to say I'm sold on Thomas Gold's Deep Hot
Biosphere too (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/DHB.html for a brief
overview, and the book - an excellent read - is available via Amazon)

If that proposal is true only in part, then there's plenty of
opportunity for the world population to enjoy for centuries the rate of
energy use only available to under a billion of us (and only for the
next few decades given current supply chains) in the technological
nations.

That said, /all/ use of fossil fuels has a detrimental effect on the
planet's atmosphere, biosphere and climate. Common sense alone implies
we can't continually dump CO2 into the atmosphere without some resultant
effects on life on Earth. Given that, the solutions would seem to be:

1/ Recycle products better.
2/ Utilise sustainable energy sources only.
3/ Minimise energy use (more efficient vehicles, bulbs, etc.)

And therefore we may as well:

4/ Develop fusion power (the "easy" D and T reactions initially, with
proton-proton reactions "eventually")
5/ Build and utilise SPS's and microwave transmission for truly clean
energy production.

The astrophile in me sees the development of habitats to support
off-world energy production and industrialisation as a natural step in
ensuring a sustainable future on this increasingly over-crowded and
definitely over-polluted planet.

See? A green approach to the need for space-based habitats (and to
counter the anti-green message of the last few days). ;-)

Andy Goddard