It's true I tell you! It's true!

Don't believe the others it's all a big conspiracy, and we will all loose in the end!

Kind of like wyoming.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

It's true I tell you! It's true!

Don't believe the others it's all a big conspiracy, and we will all loose in the end!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Markets don't denounce us for our "consumerism" and "greed"; if anything, these things are courted and encouraged. Indeed, isn't this why markets themselves are denounced? They encourage consumers to spend, spend, spend, consume, consume, consume. Well, think about the alternative. It exists right now with electrical provision. We are denounced for not wanting to live in 90-degree houses and sleep in puddles of sweat.

Great article, Rush.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Fun with your gov't mandated and enforced monopoly--seems gov't hates them if they even give the appearance of being one. e.g. Microsoft, but they'll actually pass laws to create and maintain the silly things. Ain't that grand.

The Real Cause of Blackouts
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Sometimes (well, often) you just want to say: down with the state!

Consider that an outburst, the kind you feel like making when the lights won't come on. And the heat wave — and the public utility response — is the news that prompts it.

All last week, major parts of Queens, New York, were without electricity following a failure of power that plunged much of the city into darkness amidst sweltering heat for more than a week.

For many, it was the Ten Days of Hell. There were thousands who were without air conditioning, lights, refrigeration, internet connections, and, well, modern life generally.

And get this: no one is sure why, precisely, it happened, other than to say that the system became overloaded. What will happen as a result? Hearings, reports, meetings, yammering, resolutions, reforms, and, in time, another black out followed by hearings, reports, meetings, etc., all of which will be filed in that huge warehouse where all the other reports on past blackouts reside.

What do the consumers do about it? They follow the news and keep paying the bills, to the same company that let them down. They can't switch. They can't influence the production process. They are powerless in more ways than one.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, California residents are putting up with blackouts, threats of more blackouts, denunciations from politicians, and even death: 56 people so far. All because of a heat wave, and all because the structure of the industry is not designed for extremes.

Now, if markets were in charge, a heat wave would not be looked at as a problem but as an opportunity. Entrepreneurs would be swarming to meet demand, just as they do in every other sector that is controlled by markets. The power companies would be praying for heat waves!

After all, do shoe manufacturers see a massive increase in footwear demand as a problem? Do fast food companies see lunchtime munchies as a terrible threat? On the contrary, these are profit opportunities.

Just who is in charge of getting electricity to residents? A public utility, which, in the absurd American lexicon, means "state-run" and "state-managed," perhaps with a veneer of private trappings. If you look at the electrical grid on a map, it is organized by region. If you look at the jurisdiction of management, it is organized by political boundaries.

In other ways, the provision of power is organized precisely as a central planner of the old school might plan something: not according to economics but according to some textbook idea of how to be "organized." It is "organized" the same way the Soviets organized grain production or the New Deal organized bridge building.

All of centralization and cartelization began nearly a century ago, as Robert Bradley points out in Energy: The Master Resource, when industry leaders obtained what was known as a regulatory covenant. They received franchise protection from market competition in exchange for which they agreed to price controls based on a cost-plus formula — a formula that survives to this day.

Then the economists got involved ex post and declared that electrical power is a "public good," under the belief that private enterprise is not up to the job of providing the essentials of life.

What industry leaders received from this pact with the devil was a certain level of cartel-like protection, the same type that the English crown granted tea or the US government grants first-class postal mail. It is a government privilege that subjects them to regulation and immunizes companies from business failure. It's great for a handful of producers, but not so great for everyone else.

There are many costs. Customers are not in charge. They are courted only for political reasons but they are not the first concern of the production process. Entrepreneurial development is hindered. Our current system of electrical provision is stuck in time. Meanwhile, sectors that provide DSL and other forms of internet and telecommunication services are expanded and advancing day by day — not with perfect results but at least with the desire to serve consumers.

Markets don't denounce us for our "consumerism" and "greed"; if anything, these things are courted and encouraged. Indeed, isn't this why markets themselves are denounced? They encourage consumers to spend, spend, spend, consume, consume, consume. Well, think about the alternative. It exists right now with electrical provision. We are denounced for not wanting to live in 90-degree houses and sleep in puddles of sweat.

How New York and California consumers would adore a setting in which power companies were begging for their business and encouraging them to turn down their thermostats to the coldest point. Competition would lead to price reductions, innovation, and an ever greater variety of services — the same as we find in the computer industry.

What we are learning in our times is that no essential sector of life can be entrusted to the state. Energy is far too important to the very core of life to be administered by a bureaucracy that lacks the economic means to provide for the public. How it should be organized we can't say in advance: it should be left to the markets. Whatever the result, you can bet the grid would not look like it does today, nor would its management be dependent on the whims of political jurisdiction.

What we need today is full, radical, complete, uncompromised deregulation and privatization. We need competition. That doesn't mean that we need two or more companies serving every market (though that was common up through the 1960s). What we need is the absence of legal barriers to enter the market. If that market is served by a single company, fine. Competition exists so long as the state is not prohibiting other companies from trying their hand.

How important is this subject? It is crucial. The continued development of civilization depends heavily on the provision of electricity and other forms of power. But what should be a major political priority isn't even on the agenda. You might think that continued blackouts and the like would change matters. We'll see.

Just think about this general principle. When some good or service is in high demand, and economically feasible to deliver to those who demand it, and it is not being delivered in a way that is consistent with consumer welfare, you can bet that the state is involved. Get the state out of it, and you will see the dawning of an era without fear of blackouts.

Let me add this: many people want to avoid the topic of energy because it is technical, large, and seems too specialized. But Robert Bradley's book tells you what you need to know, from the perspective of history, economics, and politics; and it does so understandably. You must have a working knowledge of these issues to communicate effectively on this topic. So get his book Energy: The Ultimate Resource. It will be the best $15 you will spend this summer.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

This is hysterical. Tell me again how Kyoto is just a start, you know, because anything is better than nothing, right?

Germany's Green Hypocrisy
By Evgeny Morozov 14 Jul 2006


Germany has finally bid auf wiedersehen to "the first climate neutral World Cup", as FIFA dubbed it. Yes, the organizers worked hard to give the host country the greenest tint possible. For example, according to BBC News, the stadium in Munich harvested rainwater and stored it in underground reservoirs, while the stadium in Dortmund, the venue of Germany's semi-final loss to Italy, was equipped with solar panels that generate 550,000 kilowatt-hours of energy a year. Fans have even been encouraged to commute by trains and buses rather than by cars and planes -- and Franz Beckenbauer, German soccer legend and the big boss of the tournament, was criticized for using his helicopter too often. So, if not "climate neutral", then at least "climate correct".

How appropriate for a country that prides itself on adherence to eco-friendly practices and plans to rid itself of nuclear power by 2021. Yet, the actual deeds of the German government—with global repercussions for Kyoto, EU, and the rest of the world—expose the country's green attitude as another exercise in cheap PR cloaked in heavy lobbying. Two weeks ago, in what could be the death knell for the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), the German government decided to tighten the emission requirements for all new power plants, including the heavy polluting coal stations.

Here's how it works: for every new carbon-free plant fueled by coal, Germany will build eight coal-fired and carbon-emitting stations, all which are planned to open for commercial use between now and 2011. 1:8 -- not a very environmentally friendly ratio, is it? Especially when the opt-out given to the power industry is set to last until 2020...

To sweeten the pill, the German government agreed to curb the emissions limit for all others by 3.4 percent. What a treat -- especially given that in the first year of operating the ETS German companies emitted 21 million tons less than they had been given permits for, sparkling the first major ETS crisis. Those permits eventually made it to the open market, collapsing the price of carbon permits and eliminating the major incentive for other companies not to pollute. As green as it as it gets.

This, among other things, poses a question: How diligently did the Germans estimate their level of emissions, if they allowed for such a huge gap? Well, according to Sigmar Gabriel, the German environment minister, they just used a bizarre averaging system...

"To calculate this cap reliable data for 2005 were taken into account, but not exclusively, because we believe that data from a single year do not provide a sufficient basis to determine the cap. So we took the average over several years..."

It would be great if the world had known how each country arrives at those estimates prior to the failure of ETS, not subsequent to it, don't you think? The transparency of the ETS, under which countries continuously fail to submit reliable data on time, leaves much to be desired, and currently punishes those countries that take it seriously.

Take the Brits, who, because of their meticulous and diligent analysis prior to the launch of the ETS, were forced to buy extra permits. The Brits had been running a relatively successful national scheme before they were pushed to accept ETS. Now, they have to partially subsidize the big industry polluters in Germany, not to mention the distribution of benefits from ETS inside the country, where the oil companies turned out to be net beneficiaries of the scheme. So, when the costs of the country's membership in ETS were estimated at 531 million pounds and the benefits at zero, one only has to wonder where all this British euroskepticism comes from...

It is, perhaps, not a surprise that Germany is hardly pushing to discuss climate change -- which dominated last year's discussions at the G8 -- at this year's meeting in St. Petersburg. It is time somebody tells the Germans that energy security, which they covet so much, will come only if the country joins its ranks with other European countries in re-embracing nuclear energy, which Germany, paradoxically, wants to get rid of. And while the Brits, who are quite wary of coal, have started debates about going back to nuclear energy at the highest level, the Germans still prefer to play a nasty game of overstating their emissions, ignoring the excesses of its power industry, and striking secret gas deals with Russia. Could it get more hypocritical? Oh yes: as BBC reports, the motorists are slated to pick up the final bill for the government's leniency in reducing carbon emissions. They will be trained to drive "more economically"...

With Germany exploiting every chance to attack the US for not ratifying Kyoto while undermining the very principles on which it is based, it is high time to reform ETS. A recent study by the British think tank Open Europe has found many deficiencies in the scheme. The question that needs to be answered is: why continue with the largely ineffective ETS, which somehow includes hospitals, military bases, and universities -- all of whom have to bear the costs of monitoring and compliance , but excludes the actual polluters for whom this scheme had been designed in the first place? Especially, given that, according to Open Europe, there are no hard proof that ETS has actually helped to reduce emissions.

Well, at least the German government seems happy: finally, they found an excellent opportunity for the European project to pay back whatever Germany invested in it since 1950s. And also, of all people, Joschka Fischer, the long-standing leader of the German Greens and thus one of the architects of the country's current energy policy, seems to have made up his mind: he's given up his post at the Bundestag and is leaving for an academic job at Princeton. Too bad that all the German motorists can't follow him. So much for green anti-Americanism in Germany; the captain has left the ship...

The World Cup was, indeed, climate neutral...The problem is that the German government wasn't.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

'We Solve More Problems Than We Create'
By Dr. Henry I. Miller, 14 Jul 2006

bjornlomborg Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, who became a punching bag for environmental activists after he challenged the popular wisdom that the natural environment is deteriorating, recently granted a fascinating interview to Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley Strassel. He repeated the theme of his controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Far from continually degrading the environment, "our history shows that we solve more problems than we create."

Mr. Lomborg does recognize that safeguarding public health and the environment requires both resources and resourcefulness from the lawmakers and bureaucrats who must address the world's most challenging problems -- emerging and established infectious diseases, famine and malnutrition, water shortages, and so on. The essence of this problem-solving, he believes, is the setting of priorities and the search for efficient, cost-effective ways to accomplish major international health, economic and environmental goals.

My suggestion for a cheap, highly leveraged and cost-effective intervention is to reform government regulation to make it more scientific, logical and responsive to society's and individuals' needs.

Among many activists, regulators and legislators, there is a pervasive myth that a little over-regulation never hurt anybody. But a "little" here and a "little" there adds up. The reality is that today regulation exacts societal costs whose magnitude is almost unimaginable. According to a recent analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, U.S. regulatory costs in 2005 were approximately $1.13 trillion, equal to almost half of all of the government's discretionary, entitlement and interest spending ($2.47 trillion), and much larger than the sum of all corporate pre-tax profits -- $874 billion. Much of the expenditure on regulation is ill-spent on (to paraphrase Mr. Lomborg) the most expensive cures that do the least good.

The direct and indirect expenses related to government regulation -- whether good, bad, or indifferent -- also exert an "income effect," which reflects the correlation between wealth and health. The accumulation of wealth by societies is necessary to fund medical research, build schools, support infrastructure and sanitation -- and to improve environmental amenities.

Sometimes, a given risk is so great that even costly regulation may prove to be well worth the price, but too often the greater harm is from the regulatory requirements themselves. For example, a 2001 EPA rule requiring municipalities to reduce the amount of naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water from an already low level to an even lower one prevents approximately twenty-three to thirty-three cancer deaths each year. However, achieving such a reduction is tremendously expensive, and high natural arsenic levels occur most frequently in the largely poor, rural areas of the American southwest where, according to a study by the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution, the regulation could actually lead to more deaths than it would save. Public health resources would have to be diverted from more cost-effective uses such as ambulance service and health care, and the higher price of public water would cause some consumers to resort to less expensive, but untreated, well water that poses considerable bacteriological health risks -- and which still contains the higher natural level of arsenic. Such consumers are made worse off by public policy based on the presumption that additional regulation must lead to additional safety. "Regulatory overkill" is no exaggeration.

There is no paucity of targets for regulatory reform. Internationally, we could get rid of existing or imminent bans of important chemicals in cases where the proscriptions accomplish little or nothing for human health or the environment. Examples include the prohibitions on the pesticides DDT (under the UN's Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty) and methyl bromide (under the UN's Montreal Protocol, intended to reduce ozone depletion). Another is the excessive regulation by national regulators and a host of UN agencies of biotechnology used in agriculture and food production. Yet another is California's notorious Proposition 65, the prototype of costly, ill-conceived regulation. Its one-size-fits-all approach has resulted in "warning" signs in most commercial establishments, from supermarkets and pet stores to hotel lobbies, proclaiming that consumers of their products or services may be exposed to chemicals that can cause cancer or birth defects although in the overwhelming majority of cases there's no hint of risk greater than, say, the household cleaners in the average home.

All of these examples are hugely net-negative to society.

But how do we achieve the needed reforms? After all, individuals and organizations usually act in ways that favor their own self-interest, and self-interest for regulators means more responsibilities, larger budgets and grander bureaucratic empires. Too often, it is these goals -- instead of the public interest -- that shape policy. Moreover, many regulatory agencies -- especially those within the UN -- are in thrall to the most extreme, anti-technology, anti-business, anti-capitalistic elements of society.

Mr. Lomborg is a realist. He doesn't expect miracles from political leaders and bureaucrats, hoping instead for "getting it slightly less wrong." An appropriately modest proposal from the skeptical environmentalist.

Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the FDA's Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993. Barron's selected his most recent book, "The Frankenfood Myth..." one of the 25 Best Books of 2004.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

We may need the cold but I still don't have to like it. You ever felt the kind of cold we had in Korea? You get that cold blowing in off the water (which is on three sides mind you) and no matter how many layers you wear its never enough. Besided, once you start to sweat, and that sweat cools, you'll never be warm again. Damn that sucked. Its like getting your butt kicked by a Popsicle weilding biker.

Well its as I said, the eath has warm and cool trends, but all this crap we keep pumping out has to be doing something, and I don't mean to sound like a eco-nazi but we do need to start finding ways of living cleaner.

We are finding ways of living cleaner. every day you hear of some new way of cleaning exhaust, reducing use of toxic chemicals, etc. There is even a new method of using water as a welding/cutting fuel (check out Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc.) which has the potential to make great reductions in combustion products of all kinds.

The cold areas on Earth are just as important as the warmer areas. All are needed for driving our present weather systems and to keep a good balance of rainfall.

we may need the cold but I still don't have to like it. You ever felt the kind of cold we had in Korea? You get that cold blowing in off the water (which is on three sides mind you) and no matter how many layers you wear its never enough. Besided, once you start to sweat, and that sweat cools, you'll never be warm again. Damn that sucked. Its like getting your butt kicked by a Popsicle weilding biker.

Well its as I said, the eath has warm and cool trends, but all this crap we keep pumping out has to be doing something, and I don't mean to sound like a eco-nazi but we do need to start finding ways of living cleaner.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

"Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past - but we still don't need it" is a fair comment of the skepticism about nuclear power.

"Some groups, such as Greenpeace, the New Economics Foundation and the Sustainable Development Commission, have produced reports showing that we can meet the government's target - a 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050 - without recourse to atomic power. They are right, but the target is now irrelevant. In the book I am publishing in September, I will show that when you take into account both human population growth and the anticipated reduction in the biosphere's ability to absorb carbon, we require a worldwide cut of roughly 60% per capita by 2030. If emissions are to be distributed evenly, this means that the UK's need to be cut by 87% in 24 years."

Which was the point I made several times previously.

"But there are other arguments that do stand up. The most fundamental environmental principle - one that all children are taught as soon as they are old enough to understand it - is that you don't make a new mess until you have cleared up the old one. To start building a new generation of nuclear power stations before we know what to do with the waste produced by existing plants is grotesquely irresponsible. The government's advisers have determined only that it should be buried. No one yet knows where, how or at what cost."

Well, George, you can't have your cake and eat it too, you had better start building them, and fast. Build breeders and recycle the hot stuff. You don't bury anything, you just keep reusing it.

Another spin is that we could make the existing (and any new) steam generation electrical generation plant twice as efficient and so effectively doubling their output... Just requires more hardware and so initially higher capital costs.

Just do it. We're waiting...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The nuclear options need very careful nurturing and very good sound design to be made acceptable and cost effective. The 'renewables' options have their costs also, but are far easier to give a positive acceptability spin for.

This should all be kept as simple as possible for the maximum good effect possible.

And this is one of the fundamental problems: that those that care the most, who want the change the most, raise the most insurmountable obstacles. Nuclear power, especially breeders, is relatively cheap and cost effective, always has been. That a solution must have "positive acceptability spin," suggests in part that ideology means more to many than solving the problem.

The "Nuclear Power" option has just been given a cautious go-ahead here in the UK to replace the existing ageing nuclear reactors that all come to the end of their useful lives over the next 15 years. They provide about 20% of the UK power so something is needed to replace them!

"Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past - but we still don't need it" is a fair comment of the skepticism about nuclear power.


Another spin is that we could make the existing (and any new) steam generation electrical generation plant twice as efficient and so effectively doubling their output... Just requires more hardware and so initially higher capital costs.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Personaly... I hate the cold. From what I've read I've found two things, the earth seems to warm and cool as part of its own natural cycle. This is normal, we've seen it before, at one point we had palm trees in the Artic and also the well documented 'little ice age' of the late 1770's. Now that said, I do also belive that all this pollution that we're pumping out is having an effect, simply you can not introduce all this new matrial into the inviorment without it having some kind of effect, now I am not well enough versed to say what the exact effects of this would be but something would have to change.

... And lots will be changing where especially the weather patterns are going to change greatly...

The cold areas on Earth are just as important as the warmer areas. All are needed for driving our present weather systems and to keep a good balance of rainfall.

A few more examples I've stumbled across that show how global temperature and CO2 levels are changing:

Carbon Dioxide 400kyr period (from the Wikipedia article Concentrations of CO2 in atmosphere)

Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature (from Global Climate Change and Energy)

Its a continuing big story. The present very sharp fast increase in CO2 promises to generate very rapid warming unless we can reduce our CO2 emissions quickly.

At present, Man produces 100 times more CO2 output than the combined outgassing of all of the Earth's volcanoes!


Ask your local politicians what is being done to reduce emissions sooner rather than later...

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Personaly... I hate the cold. From what I've read I've found two things, the earth seems to warm and cool as part of its own natural cycle. This is normal, we've seen it before, at one point we had palm trees in the Artic and also the well documented 'little ice age' of the late 1770's. Now that said, I do also belive that all this pollution that we're pumping out is having an effect, simply you can not introduce all this new matrial into the inviorment without it having some kind of effect, now I am not well enough versed to say what the exact effects of this would be but something would have to change.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

I agree that good viable economics is the most effective way to save our planet. That is where Governments can create the financial/economic environment to make it all happen. Education to make everyone more aware can help also.

Eh, maybe. I think the gov't should just get the hell outta the way for the most part--it doesn't "create [] financial/economic environment[s]" it places a huge drag on them. Less taxation is still taxation.

The nuclear options need very careful nurturing and very good sound design to be made acceptable and cost effective. The 'renewables' options have their costs also, but are far easier to give a positive acceptability spin for.

This should all be kept as simple as possible for the maximum good effect possible.

And this is one of the fundamental problems: that those that care the most, who want the change the most, raise the most insurmountable obstacles. Nuclear power, especially breeders, is relatively cheap and cost effective, always has been. That a solution must have "positive acceptability spin," suggests in part that ideology means more to many than solving the problem.

Our Earth has cooled and warmed in the past. However, that is the past and we were not there. In the here and now, we are here with a remarkably easy life on our planet for the moment, and we are forcibly quickly changing those conditions that in turn are now causing a very rapid warming that is going to make all life very uncomfortably different.

Maybe "we" are changing those conditions (we certainly contribute, whatever that means) and maybe the earth would do it anyway, as it has.

We have the technology to avoid the worst of the Global Warming. However, we need to act sooner rather than far too late...

If "we" have this technology: build it. Quit skrewing around, get Greenfarce, DirtFirst!, and Sierra Schlub together and get going.

Waiting for GM or Monsanto or Kyoto or the U.S. gov't to do it is a losing proposition.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Meanwhile, development effort must be diverted from providing yet more 'consumer toys' to instead develop better more efficient ways to live on our planet. Or at least just to develop more 'sympathetic' ways to live with our planet. This can be a combination of grass-roots lifestyle change/improvements and improved or new technology such as nuclear fission/fusion.

The only thing that is even kinda viable right now is the use of modern breeder reactors and recycled nuclear material. Sadly, many of the people who feel as you do will fight to the death to prevent the construction of new reactors, especially breeders. That will not help their cause. However, unless the solution is economical, it won't fly, just like Kyoto didn't. That is the real inconvenient truth...

I agree that good viable economics is the most effective way to save our planet. That is where Governments can create the financial/economic environment to make it all happen. Education to make everyone more aware can help also.

The nuclear options need very careful nurturing and very good sound design to be made acceptable and cost effective. The 'renewables' options have their costs also, but are far easier to give a positive acceptability spin for.

This should all be kept as simple as possible for the maximum good effect possible.

The first problem is in recognising that there is indeed a serious Global Warming problem that requires immediate and significant action worldwide. At present, there is lots of positive political noises. There is still also a lot of denial from certain groups...

Right, people disagree. They don't all buy into the alarmist rhetoric, partially because this planet has warmed and cooled itself into and out of ice ages and the like, long before we came along. There are other processes at work, because of that you will have a difficult time convincing everyone that they must continue to live miserable lives that will not improve. ...

This is where perceptions need improving via better education or just plain simple politics.

Our Earth has cooled and warmed in the past. However, that is the past and we were not there. In the here and now, we are here with a remarkably easy life on our planet for the moment, and we are forcibly quickly changing those conditions that in turn are now causing a very rapid warming that is going to make all life very uncomfortably different.

We have the technology to avoid the worst of the Global Warming. However, we need to act sooner rather than far too late...

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And this is where the consumer masses must be convinced to curb and restrain their excesses. The first casualty is likely to be "cheap flights".

Good luck getting that to go over. As I said before, many hiracs here actually buy computers to crunch for SETI--they view that as a worthwhile way to use resources. In other words, people do as they see best. Pulling a few airplanes from the sky might skrew the poor a little bit, but it won't solve the problem as long as ever growing numbers of people strive to make their lives better.

Meanwhile, development effort must be diverted from providing yet more 'consumer toys' to instead develop better more efficient ways to live on our planet. Or at least just to develop more 'sympathetic' ways to live with our planet. This can be a combination of grass-roots lifestyle change/improvements and improved or new technology such as nuclear fission/fusion.

The only thing that is even kinda viable right now is the use of modern breeder reactors and recycled nuclear material. Sadly, many of the people who feel as you do will fight to the death to prevent the construction of new reactors, especially breeders. That will not help their cause. However, unless the solution is economical, it won't fly, just like Kyoto didn't. That is the real inconvenient truth...

The first problem is in recognising that there is indeed a serious Global Warming problem that requires immediate and significant action worldwide. At present, there is lots of positive political noises. There is still also a lot of denial from certain groups...

Right, people disagree. They don't all buy into the alarmist rhetoric, partially because this planet has warmed and cooled itself into and out of ice ages and the like, long before we came along. There are other processes at work, because of that you will have a difficult time convincing everyone that they must continue to live miserable lives that will not improve. We aren't talking about the few middle class Westerners, we're talking the billions of people who want to make their lives better and live to see their families thrive.

Have you got any answers?

No, I don't. And neither does Al Gore.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Your 'dilemma' is what exactly?

I said it, specifically: BILLIONS more people striving towards middle class cannot allow for global warming to be less than it has been without effective economic solutions. ...

And this is where the consumer masses must be convinced to curb and restrain their excesses. The first casualty is likely to be "cheap flights".

Meanwhile, development effort must be diverted from providing yet more 'consumer toys' to instead develop better more efficient ways to live on our planet. Or at least just to develop more 'sympathetic' ways to live with our planet. This can be a combination of grass-roots lifestyle change/improvements and improved or new technology such as nuclear fission/fusion.


The first problem is in recognising that there is indeed a serious Global Warming problem that requires immediate and significant action worldwide. At present, there is lots of positive political noises. There is still also a lot of denial from certain groups...

Have you got any answers?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Your 'dilemma' is what exactly?

I said it, specifically: BILLIONS more people striving towards middle class cannot allow for global warming to be less than it has been without effective economic solutions. Hand wringing and vague hand-waving towards failed gov't initiatives such as Kyoto will not solve the problem.

As I said earlier in this thread, that means billions more cans of Coke, millions more window air conditioners, bikes, computers, windows, faucets, floors, toilet seats, lamps, books, shoes, desks, stoves, watches, refrigerators, phones, more everything. Your "appropriate technologies" that are gradually raising the standards of living will be overwhelmed by simple demand for minor, every day items.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

... Hence the dilemma.

I don't agree with your use of "dilemma" in this context. However, that depends on what you mean in what way exactly.

Another easily readable summary that I've come across is:

The last refuge - what can we do to prevent billions frying to death?

Your 'dilemma' is what exactly?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Do you accept that Man's activities are directly increasing the concentration of CO2 and CH4 in our atmosphere?

How many degrees C does the effects of CO2 & CH4 warm our atmosphere by?

Martin, you're missing the point entirely. Make an argument that BILLIONS more people striving towards middle class somehow allow for warming to be less that what it has been...

Hence the dilemma.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Your turn to offer some data.

Regards,
Martin

Martin, you are trying to convince me, not the other way around.

That's completely lame and pathetic. I must guess that you have nothing to back up your claims or guesses.

Sorry, I'm not doing your thinking for you. (You could stay a spoon-fed unquestioning zombie in front of the TV instead of debating.)


Do you accept that Man's activities are directly increasing the concentration of CO2 and CH4 in our atmosphere?

How many degrees C does the effects of CO2 & CH4 warm our atmosphere by?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)