On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 raden wrote:

In message x 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

That's why we buy everything from China and
Asia now, so we don't use so much energy in factories. :-)

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

And the biggest energy producing country.

But if the A-380 is ever used by airlines, fuel
use all over the world will go up.

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 ?

Depends on where, eskimos wore skins, and
ate lots of blubber for energy.
Rural Eastern Europe lived in shacks with
dirt floors, and on real cold nights invited the cattle
and pigs in, and cuddled with them.
I guess maybe in the UK, coal was being
burned for heat.

or
giving up income.

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

Unless Saudia Arabia keeps selling oil.

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

I don't think the energy crisis is exactly analogous
to over fishing, but I like the idea of fish farms.
In 1958 I experimented with raising guppies in
salt water until they were adults, they were sterile in
ocean water, bur when slowly accustomed back to
fresh water, they were extremely healthy and prolific.
If the number of young I got from 15 pairs were
to be extrapolated over 10 years, there would be enough
to feed the world.

similarly with energy consumption

I am all for planting every square acre in sugar cane,
potatoes, beets, water melon, and everything that can be
used to make ethanol.
But that may not work in every country.

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

There is time, at least in the US, but I see Europe
in a critical situation, with an urgent need to do something
to assure that people don't freeze.

Even if there is a crisis, action will be fast, and
a solution will be worked out (unless you are talking
about sea level rise, which is going to happen anyway).
My problems are just keeping warm in 2 rooms
and bath (the rest of the house is not heated), and
trying to keep from being bored.

Joe Fischer