You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit
than altruism -- to provide a useful solution?

You expect the government, which is driven more by establishing
and growing a power base, than doing anything useful for its
constituents, to provide a useful solution?

It does in other areas.


Ok, answering a question with a question is not really an answer, but
I couldn't resist. Lacking any better alternatives, I do think the
market will save our collective posteriors once again as it has
countless times in the past. I'll spare you the standard lecture on
greed and need. Suffice to say that if we run out of fossil fuels,
numerous enterprising entrepreneurs will provide a variety of
alternatives.

You have missed the point. This is something "we" should have been working
on for the past 60 years. The energy doesn't want to do very much because it
wants prices to go through the roof.


The winners will be what the consumer buys, not what
the government mandates.

They government doesn't have to mandate anything. It can support and
encourage a wide variety of solutions.


Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve "austerity
programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm not sure what
you
mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble selling carbon offsets?)

Austerity programs are those that offer either a penalty for over-use,
or an incentive or subsidy for switching to alternatives. Neither
method will survive for long. Subsidizing solar installations is fine
for the short term, but cannot be supported for maybe a few more years
as solar adoption grows. All incentives seem to do is accelerate the
process of adoption. If you want real accelerated conversion, just
watch what happens when you run out of oil or turn off the
electricity.

That's exactly what we DON'T want to happen. You don't wait until the well
runs dry before you start digging another well.

Humans can anticipate what will happen and take steps to prevent it.

All I hear from you and the others is hatred of government; mindless worship
of "the marketplace"; and a belief that "something will happen to save us"
without our having to take any initial steps.

Go back to reading Ayn Rand.


Incidentally, the English crown did a land grab of most of the forests
in England in order to insure that there would be enough big trees
needed for ship building. Meanwhile, the peasants froze during the
worst part of the little ice age. We're going to have more of the
same when we run out of oil.

If we work to develop alternative energy sources, there WON'T BE a "running
out of oil" problem.


Yep, because there's little (financial) incentive to do anything
different at this time. I got a good hint in 1974, when I decided
that the energy crisis of 73-74 would produce a market for a better
electric vehicle. So, I designed and partially built what I
considered to be a better machine. There was considerable interest
until the day the Arabs turned the oil back on, when all interest
evaporated. Lesson learned... nobody wants a solution to a
non-existent problem.

Correction... The problem still exists, but people refust to acknowledge it.

I got the clue in 73-74 when the Arabs turned off the oil and we had
an energy crisis. The press was full of conspiracy theories
suggesting that the evil oil companies were conspiring to raise prices
and soak the public. So, I investigated the owners of the major oil
companies and found (for example) that the largest stockholder in
Standard Oil was the Chicago school teachers retirement fund. Somehow,
I had a difficult time believing that they would force Standard Oil
management to precipitate an energy crisis in order to increase their
profits.

The management of the oil company does it for them.

Do you really believe that "the stockholders" have much of a say in running
companies? They do, only when they're wealthy people who own a preponderance
of the stock, which lets them control who sits on the board. The "little
guys" are generally disorganized and unfocused.

I just love the Johnson Wax -- "a family company" -- ads. "Family company"
means it's not public -- the Johnsons own the stock, making them
unaccountable to anyone else. They might very well be as sincere as they
paint themselves, but being family-owned does not, per se, guarantee that a
business will try to behave in a responsible manner, that goes beyond merely
making money. (Contrary to what you might think about my opinions, making
money is a good thing.)

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

Uh, huh. The free-market forces you praise -- which work very
well in the short term -- will almost always produce long-term
results that benefit only business.

As if "business" is some enemy of the people.

It often is. You know little about history.


They provide goods and
services that the people want and consume.
Businesses are owned either by private citizens or
stockholders(IOW,citizens)Businesses are -US-,not some enemy.That's
your socialism poking its ugly head again.
Otherwise,they'd be OUT of business. (unless propped up by
socialism;then they become antiquated and wasteful).

You just don't understand, do you?



It appears you don't.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

It appears you don't.

You lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Eugene_Smith

You might want to read about what happened to W Eugene Smith, one of the
great photojournalists, when he tried to document a Japanese business's
pollution of the waters near its plant.

One of his photos -- "Tomoko and Mother in the Bath" -- showing a mother
bathing her child, whose body was deformed by mercury poisoning -- combines
beauty and horror in a way not easily described in words. It is one of the
greatest photographs ever taken. The child's deformities were /wholly/ the
fault of the business placing profit above responsibility to its community.

The copyright holder has withdrawn the photo, so I can't find a Website with
it.

http://aileenarchive.or.jp/aileenarc...boutphoto.html

If you ever saw it, you would burst into tears. So shut the **** up about
how wonderful an unregulated marketplace is, you piece of moral ****.

http://www.dailypress.com/entertainm...2740867.column

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

It appears you don't.

You lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Eugene_Smith

You might want to read about what happened to W Eugene Smith, one of
the great photojournalists, when he tried to document a Japanese
business's pollution of the waters near its plant.

One of his photos -- "Tomoko and Mother in the Bath" -- showing a
mother bathing her child, whose body was deformed by mercury poisoning
-- combines beauty and horror in a way not easily described in words.
It is one of the greatest photographs ever taken. The child's
deformities were /wholly/ the fault of the business placing profit
above responsibility to its community.

The copyright holder has withdrawn the photo, so I can't find a
Website with it.

http://aileenarchive.or.jp/aileenarc...boutphoto.html

If you ever saw it, you would burst into tears. So shut the **** up
about how wonderful an unregulated marketplace is, you piece of moral
****.

http://www.dailypress.com/entertainm...ms/dp-fea-mark
-0530-20100529,0,2740867.column


a few bad examples don't make an entire picture.
OF course,the one who first resorts to profanity LOSES.
You lost this argument.

Oh,and if "business" is so evil,then YOU,being such a moral person,should
not be using any product from any business. That would include the
Internet,the computer,the food you buy at the store,etc.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
There has been a gradual warming since the Industrial Age.
The apparently "sudden" change is supposedly due to a "tip
over" effect.

That sounds like a high priest of MMGW's invention to make
the facts fit the model ... :-)

You have that backwards -- make the model fit the facts.

No, I said it exactly as intended. I guess the subtlety of that was - well -
just too subtle for you ... It is the *model* that is pushed by the MMGW
high priests as immutable ("we're right, therefore you must be wrong",
remember?), so when the facts do not fit that model, an excuse for the
factual anomaly is invented, and given a fancy name ...

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
It's true that scientists are only slightly less irrational
than your average idiot. That doesn't mean they're wrong,
or that it's a bad idea to use less energy or recycle waste.

You too, appear to miss the point of what I was saying ...

Oh, I got your point... That people accept certain belief systems with a
near-religious fervor. But that has nothing to do with whether those
beliefs
are true or not, or how we should live our lives.



Well, for the rest of the world aside from you, I would contend that it
really does, which is why the perceived problem of belief in the science
among the general populace, exists in the first place. It is this point that
I believe both you, and the presenter of that programme, missed ...

Arfa

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:42:53 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Wind
turbines take a lot of manufacturing, shipping, installing and
maintenance,
all of which uses very substantial amounts of energy, and the returns from
them are very small at best.

Well, when there's no wind, other uses for the device can be found;
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/base-jumping-off-wind-turbines-is-insane-video.php


--
Jeff Liebermann


That's a far better use to put them to. I wonder how they get up there in
the first place ?

Arfa

Well, for the rest of the world aside from you, I would contend
that it really does, which is why the perceived problem of belief
in the science among the general populace, exists in the first place.

Up to the point where "science" conflicts with what people would LIKE to
believe -- it gets in the way of their making money.

There has been a gradual warming since the Industrial Age.
The apparently "sudden" change is supposedly due to a "tip
over" effect.

That sounds like a high priest of MMGW's invention to make
the facts fit the model ... :-)

You have that backwards -- make the model fit the facts.

No, I said it exactly as intended. I guess the subtlety of that was -
well -
just too subtle for you ... It is the *model* that is pushed by the MMGW
high priests as immutable ("we're right, therefore you must be wrong",
remember?), so when the facts do not fit that model, an excuse for the
factual anomaly is invented, and given a fancy name ...

The "facts" are that there was been a noticeable rise in the Earth's
temperature over the past 20+ years. You can't change this, so you have to
change the model.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 02:26:37 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
Well, when there's no wind, other uses for the device can be found;
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/base-jumping-off-wind-turbines-is-insane-video.php

That's a far better use to put them to. I wonder how they get up there in
the first place ?
Arfa

Well, they didn't land there with a paraglider (no wind, no thermals)
or helicopter (turbine blades in the way), so I guess they just broke
into the tower and climbed up the internal ladder. Tour of the
insides:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR_IrBEbi6Q

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 05:29:26 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:



Fact: There are too many people. If population continues to grow unchecked,
"something" will eventually happen to reduce it -- global war, starvation,
economic collapse, perhaps things we haven't anticipated. THE EARTH DOES NOT
HAVE AN UNLIMITED CARRYING CAPACITY. We can choose to do something rational
about it -- or ignore it.


And virtually everyone either ignores this problem, or feels helpless
to do anything.

Fact: There are too many people. If population continues to grow
unchecked, "something" will eventually happen to reduce it --
global war, starvation, economic collapse, perhaps things we
haven't anticipated. THE EARTH DOES NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED
CARRYING CAPACITY. We can choose to do something rational
about it -- or ignore it.

And virtually everyone either ignores this problem, or feels helpless
to do anything.

Two other views which have been expressed he

Doing anything is an affront to personal freedom.

Anything we do will have undesirable side-effects, so we should do nothing.

PeterD wrote in
:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 05:29:26 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:



Fact: There are too many people. If population continues to grow
unchecked, "something" will eventually happen to reduce it -- global
war, starvation, economic collapse, perhaps things we haven't
anticipated.

Plague.

THE EARTH DOES NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED CARRYING CAPACITY.
We can choose to do something rational about it -- or ignore it.


And virtually everyone either ignores this problem, or feels helpless
to do anything.


First,I don't believe we are anywhere close to the "carrying capacity" of
the Earth. Some places are jam packed,others are sparsely populated.

WHAT to "do" about "excess population",and how do "we" determine HOW MANY
people "we" are going to allow for any particular region?
Who gets to be the "we"?
IMO,that's starting to get a bit "Big Brother-ish". It's CREEPY.
I see parallels to Soylent Green.

Most places don't even use good farming techniques,wasting or depleting a
lot of arable land. South America is stripping the rainforests,slash and
burn,for uses the land is not suitable for.
many places around the world still burn wood for cooking and heating.
I saw on "Martin Yan's China"(PBS-TV) where their people outside of the
cities are burning the waste stalks from rice and wheat harvests for their
cooking. so much for "carbon control"....




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

THE EARTH DOES NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED CARRYING CAPACITY.
We can choose to do something rational about it -- or ignore it.

First, I don't believe we are anywhere close to the "carrying capacity" of
the Earth. Some places are jam packed,others are sparsely populated.

No, we're not close to it. So we're supposed to wait until things get so bad
we no longer have any rational alternatives?


WHAT to "do" about "excess population",and how do "we" determine
HOW MANY people "we" are going to allow for any particular region?
Who gets to be the "we"?
IMO, that's starting to get a bit "Big Brother-ish". It's CREEPY.
I see parallels to Soylent Green.

I agree. That's why I suggested (I think) that everyone, everywhere, be
forced to limit the size of their family to two children.

If people everywhere would start talking about it, we might come to a
consensus, perhaps even without getting government involved. Of course, what
do you do about people who adore children, and want to have huge families?