> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [I wrote:]
<snip>
> > I really do try to think about what I'm doing WRT
> > energy consumption; I'll bet that if everyone did
> the
> > same or more (and there are those who make me look
> > like a glutton!), it *would* make a significant
> > impact.
> Significant as in slowing down the rate of increase
> in greenhouse gasses,
> probably. But I don't think that it's as
> straightforward as it might appear
> to be on the surface. The costs/repercussions
> inherent in people cutting
> down energy use is not clear when we just look at
> one person doing it...isolated from everyone else.
No - rapidly changing from an economy based on planned
obsolesence (?sp) to one based on retailing more
permanent (let's say multi-generational) consumer
goods would be very disruptive to our current way of
life. Although some of us already don't follow
fashion trends or change decor yearly, if everyone
didn't, the clothing and retail furniture businesses,
as currently organized, would collapse. There are of
course many others - dishware, automotive, housing and
so forth. It couldn't be safely done overnight.
<snip>
> You might want to argue against using tax/price as
> the means for cutting energy usage.
No, unfortunately, I think that the pocketbook is the
only swift way to alter people's behavior, unless you
consider totalitarian government, which nobody here
would find satisfactory. Personally, that means I'll
have to find other ways to economize, because I can't
change the distance I drive to the stables, ~ 50 miles
roundtrip (and similarly to the library), so if gas
goes to $4/gallon, I'll be eating a *lot* more rice
and beans (which I already have 2-3d/week).
>I think that it has been shown to
> have two tremendous
> advantages over other means: such as laws requiring
> the reduction of energy usage and moral appeals.
<snip>
> Doing it by legal restrictions has two significant
> problems:
>
> 1) Even the best informed and intentioned committee
> cannot find optimum
> tradeoffs in millions of different cases. Millions
> of decisions based on
> the true cost of energy will result in more
> efficient use of energy.
> 2) Loopholes are always found. The popularity of
> the Suburban turning into
> the SUV craze is an example of this. It was exempt
> from the mileage
> requirements for cars because it was a truck...as
> are SUVs. Closing all
> such loopholes would require very complicated
> legislation, which would also
> apply in unforeseen ways....often working against
> conservation.
Would you give an example of that last statement? I
personally favor taxing the snot out of luxury SUVs as
there are much more efficient ways of getting
groceries. Allowing company fleets tax breaks for
having luxury SUVS is plain stupid. Now if you have a
business which requires you to drive over
unpaved/unimproved roads, like well-drilling or
construction (not uncommon in the West), it is
necessary to use *real* utility vehicles.
> Moral appeals can be a component of the action, but
> nothing real can be
> based on "what if everyone did the right thing."
> For example, we cannot
> fund schools, highways, and Medicare by free will
> offerings.
Of course not! That's why incentives are as important
as impediments, monetary or otherwise.
> The tax plan does have problems...One obvious
> problem with an energy tax is
> that it is regressive. The regressive nature can be
> countered by
> taxes/government payments to lower. There is a cost
> to this, maybe a 10%
> surcharge on the cost of the entire program. But,
> this cost will be far
> smaller than the cost of the vast bureaucracy
> generated by regulating energy
> use while keeping energy inexpensive and, even more
> so, the generation of a
> useless industry of finding loopholes in the law.
>
> Having set this up, let's think of the cut that
> would be required to stop
> global warming. Elsewhere you suggested boycotting
> China until they have a
> more environmentally friendly policy.
As someone pointed out, boycotting hasn't happened for
their human rights abuses either, so I doubt that
they're in much danger from my attempts to avoid
purchasing goods from their sweatshops. [I wonder if
the deliberate contamination of pet/animal food will
fire up more anger here? It appears that melamine was
*added* to increase the crude analysis protein content
of the feed. As posted previously, in the past there
have also been significant problems with contaminated
drugs and infant formula (the latter only inside China
itself).]
> If I were Chinese, I'd counter that
> this is an unreasonable and hypocritical action for
> the West, since their
> per capita carbon emission is less than that of any
> Western country. It's
> less than half of that of the UK, and less than 20%
> of the US.
Having an administration that rejected the Kyoto
protocols out-of-hand certainly doesn't help. But I
do think that we need to reduce our personal use of
polluting energy...which is why I wrote that while
research into renewable/sustainable sources ought to
be a huge priority, we need a bridge, and that right
now means <gag> nuclear. {BTW, kudos for not jumping
all over that -- such self restraint! <grin>)
Exporting waste from the West into China and India is
also (or ought to be) a sore point - we should
reclaim our recyclables here.
There are conservation and environmental movements
inside China now, and there is even some action by
that government, such as encouraging the return of
bicycle use, as they've seen congestion/pollution rise
with increasing auto usage. I understand that they're
working to clean and green up Bejing for the upcoming
Olympics -- perhaps that will inspire further action.
> The numbers that I've seen is that the US and
> Europe, and other developed
> countries have to drop to, essentially, the per
> capita carbon consumption of
> China...and China and India, etc. have to hold their
> consumption at or below that level.
If we don't start seriously conserving and reducing
our use of polluting energy, and ramp up research into
alternatives, I don't think society as we know it is
sustainable.
> I'll stop here for now, I'm not sure if anyone is
> interesting in replying.
> But, if there interest, I think I could argue that
> even Debbie's lifestyle
> would be all but impossible in a no global warming
> world.
I am not a shining beacon of energy efficiency,
although I am trying to do better; here is where I
believe technology can provide much of a solution --
yet rampant consumerism is not, IMO, sustainable.
Debbi
who spent Earth Day with her horses :D
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
