In message , Joe Fischer
writes
On Sat, Andy Hall wrote:

All of this is focus in completely the wrong area. All the time that
the U.S. continues
not to make much of a federal effort in terms of emissions control

The federal government doesn't own many fossil
fuel power plants. But both the coal industry and the
power plants have been spending fortunes cleaning up
coal to reduce pollution.

Reducing demand might help too


and
China is opening
a new coal fired power station weekly, all of this other stuff makes so
little difference
that it is a waste of time on environmental grounds.

There is a lot of USA bashing, but other than the
French nuclear industry, I see very little about what other
countries are doing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Mainly because the USA is by far he most energy hungry country


I would
suggest that efforts are turned
towards dealing with the major issues, and that does not include
getting GW Bush to sign up
for silly politicised nonsense like Kyoto, but for serious efforts for change.

Actually, the only really viable change can only come
from alcohol production from bio sources, there can be some
CO2 sequestration but not on the scale that would be needed
to make a difference.

Even if the case for CO2 induced global warming could
be demonstrated clearly and proven beyond doubt, there is
nothing much that can be done without people freezing

How did mankind survive 200 years ago ?

or
giving up income.

Well that's the rub - when you're living beyond your (ecological) means,
you have to cut back

The same as is happening to North Sea cod - over-fishing means that
we're reaching the tipping point from which it seems unlikely that the
stocks will recover. Factory farming will be useful in the future, but
there's a chasm between then and now

similarly with energy consumption

.... which needs a cunning plan, not people turning off their TVs and
disconnecting phone power supplies

--
geoff