Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
know what it theoretically involved) and many others. As you say, > if such hydrates ever were released it would be as a result of the melting > away of the ice sheets. The amounts of methane spontaneously released into > the atmosphere might, according to former Greenpeace man Jeremy Legget, > trigger the feared runaway global warming which would turn this planet into > Venus, hot enough to boil lead on. > > Geothermal is not a solution. Nor is biomass. Even if current proposals to > grow prairie grass for biomass were widely implemented the energy economics > would not solve the problem. Americans will have to learn to catch the bus > and ride a bicycle. > > BTW, it doesn't surprise me but it does sadden me to hear people start > saying things like "old growth forests are the worst trees from the point of > view of > global warming.> We should cut them all down". Keep going, you'll > get a job in the Dubya environmental team. Of course the same people who now > proudly point to the reforestation of New England which happened in the past > 50 years as evidence of capitalism's enviornmentally-benign impact > (forgetting that the price the world has paid is the enormous quantity of > fossil carbon trhe US threw into the atmopshere instead) will immediatelt > start telling us what a bad thing from all sorts of *environmental* points > of view, old growth forests are and how we need to cut them all down as > quick as possible to get the ethanol to keep our SUV's going... > > Mark Jones > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > > > -----Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly > > Sent: 30 June 2000 07:43 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PEN-L:21009] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness > > > > > > I live in Manitoba. THe bulk of my electricity comes from hydro. > > There are two > > supplementary coal-fired plants that usually do not operate. Quebec > > electricity comes almost entirely from hydro, although some of it > > is imported > > from Labrador at cheap prices and then exported to New England > > states at much > > higher prices.. Hydro power plants do not burn fossil fuels. > > Ontario as well > > as France has considerable nuclear power.. I do not know how much > > electrical > > power is produced worldwide through hydro but it must be substantial. In > > Denmark over 10 percent of power is from wind. There is no reason why this > > cannot be increased. > > Global warming is likely to become more of the "in" crisis long before > > fossil fuels run out. > > In fact it could be argued that the sooner fossil fuels run out > > the better. By > > the way there are huge deposits of hydragas crystals that could > > be developed > > as a source of natural gas. Geothermal power is also an underdeveloped > > resource in most areas. If oil prices go to 30 or 40 dollars a barrel > > geothermal power would be economic even in areas such as Saskatchewan. > > Scrub and quick-growing wood is also actually a good source of > > heat plus the > > junk grows back very quickly releasing oxygen and using carbon dioxide. In > > Sweden garbage is a source of heat for some urban centers. By the by, old > > growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of > > global warming. > > We should cut them all down > > and replant with quick growing trash trees that we could cut for pulp :) > > The problem with global warming is that it is difficult if > > not impossible > > to know if it is a long term trend or what its effects will be. > > Even if there > > is global warming the effects are mixed and there are certainly > > no foolproof > > models that would assure one of any unimaginable economic > > results, just that > > there will be considerable changes with winners and losers. Of course you > > could argue from a precautionary principle that action should be taken now > > because changes may be abrupt, irreversible and disastrous. With global > > warming the hydragas crystals on the floor of the Arctic Ocean > > may warm and > > become instable producing one huge natural gas fart that destabilizes the > > whole north of the Great White North and who knows what will happen then. > >Cheers, Ken Hanly > > > > Brad De Long wrote: > > > > > >I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity > > production > > > >depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? > > > > > > Unless you live in the Pacific Northwest or France, the bulk of your > > > electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels... > > > >
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Ken, dams *do* consume vast quantities of carbon in their construction, as many as 12 gallons of oil per tonne of cement (the manufacture of which is uitself a leading source of GHG). The world's major hydropower resources have already been largely exploited. Some dams have a long service life, which helps payback the iunitial energy investment and possibly justifies the immense ecological damage and harm to communities which all major dams always involve. Many dams silt up after a few years and cease to provide power; they never pay back. But they leave disrupted ecosystems, ruined wetlands and water basins, salinated soil and wrecked communities. But the bottom line is that hydropower is marginal and absolutely irrelevant to the problem caused by the end of Big Oil. Some theoreticians propose building huge propellors in mid-Atlantic to be driven by the Gulf Stream; that's how desperate people are. They better be quick, in case the Gulf Stream stops flowing altogether because of global warming. By 'hydragas crystal' you mean methane hydrates locked under arctic ice sheets presumably. They are like cold fusion and other forms of perpetual motion machines. They will never be exploited. The reasons why have been laborious documented by myself (and I've been to the Soviet arctic icefields myself and know what it theoretically involved) and many others. As you say, if such hydrates ever were released it would be as a result of the melting away of the ice sheets. The amounts of methane spontaneously released into the atmosphere might, according to former Greenpeace man Jeremy Legget, trigger the feared runaway global warming which would turn this planet into Venus, hot enough to boil lead on. Geothermal is not a solution. Nor is biomass. Even if current proposals to grow prairie grass for biomass were widely implemented the energy economics would not solve the problem. Americans will have to learn to catch the bus and ride a bicycle. BTW, it doesn't surprise me but it does sadden me to hear people start saying things like "old growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of > global warming.> We should cut them all down". Keep going, you'll get a job in the Dubya environmental team. Of course the same people who now proudly point to the reforestation of New England which happened in the past 50 years as evidence of capitalism's enviornmentally-benign impact (forgetting that the price the world has paid is the enormous quantity of fossil carbon trhe US threw into the atmopshere instead) will immediatelt start telling us what a bad thing from all sorts of *environmental* points of view, old growth forests are and how we need to cut them all down as quick as possible to get the ethanol to keep our SUV's going... Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly > Sent: 30 June 2000 07:43 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:21009] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness > > > I live in Manitoba. THe bulk of my electricity comes from hydro. > There are two > supplementary coal-fired plants that usually do not operate. Quebec > electricity comes almost entirely from hydro, although some of it > is imported > from Labrador at cheap prices and then exported to New England > states at much > higher prices.. Hydro power plants do not burn fossil fuels. > Ontario as well > as France has considerable nuclear power.. I do not know how much > electrical > power is produced worldwide through hydro but it must be substantial. In > Denmark over 10 percent of power is from wind. There is no reason why this > cannot be increased. > Global warming is likely to become more of the "in" crisis long before > fossil fuels run out. > In fact it could be argued that the sooner fossil fuels run out > the better. By > the way there are huge deposits of hydragas crystals that could > be developed > as a source of natural gas. Geothermal power is also an underdeveloped > resource in most areas. If oil prices go to 30 or 40 dollars a barrel > geothermal power would be economic even in areas such as Saskatchewan. > Scrub and quick-growing wood is also actually a good source of > heat plus the > junk grows back very quickly releasing oxygen and using carbon dioxide. In > Sweden garbage is a source of heat for some urban centers. By the by, old > growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of > global warming. > We should cut them all down > and replant with quick growing trash trees that we could cut for pulp :) > The problem with global warming is that it is difficult if > not impossible > to know if it is a long term trend or what its effects will be. > Even if there > is global warming
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
I live in Manitoba. THe bulk of my electricity comes from hydro. There are two supplementary coal-fired plants that usually do not operate. Quebec electricity comes almost entirely from hydro, although some of it is imported from Labrador at cheap prices and then exported to New England states at much higher prices.. Hydro power plants do not burn fossil fuels. Ontario as well as France has considerable nuclear power.. I do not know how much electrical power is produced worldwide through hydro but it must be substantial. In Denmark over 10 percent of power is from wind. There is no reason why this cannot be increased. Global warming is likely to become more of the "in" crisis long before fossil fuels run out. In fact it could be argued that the sooner fossil fuels run out the better. By the way there are huge deposits of hydragas crystals that could be developed as a source of natural gas. Geothermal power is also an underdeveloped resource in most areas. If oil prices go to 30 or 40 dollars a barrel geothermal power would be economic even in areas such as Saskatchewan. Scrub and quick-growing wood is also actually a good source of heat plus the junk grows back very quickly releasing oxygen and using carbon dioxide. In Sweden garbage is a source of heat for some urban centers. By the by, old growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of global warming. We should cut them all down and replant with quick growing trash trees that we could cut for pulp :) The problem with global warming is that it is difficult if not impossible to know if it is a long term trend or what its effects will be. Even if there is global warming the effects are mixed and there are certainly no foolproof models that would assure one of any unimaginable economic results, just that there will be considerable changes with winners and losers. Of course you could argue from a precautionary principle that action should be taken now because changes may be abrupt, irreversible and disastrous. With global warming the hydragas crystals on the floor of the Arctic Ocean may warm and become instable producing one huge natural gas fart that destabilizes the whole north of the Great White North and who knows what will happen then. Cheers, Ken Hanly Brad De Long wrote: > >I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity production > >depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? > > Unless you live in the Pacific Northwest or France, the bulk of your > electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
>I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity production >depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? Unless you live in the Pacific Northwest or France, the bulk of your electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels...
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Yeah, hang separately or hang together. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky > Sent: 28 June 2000 22:49 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20893] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness > > > . . . Good luck organizing, Mark. > Doug > > > Don't sell him short. I think Mark has united PEN-L. > > mbs > >
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
. . . Good luck organizing, Mark. Doug Don't sell him short. I think Mark has united PEN-L. mbs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Jim Devine wrote: >I find your e-missives to be useless. Therefore, I've instructed the >Eudora program to automatically transfer them to the trash bin. I >recommend that others do so, too. Hmm, not very promising for "ORGANISING"! It's kind of hard to organize people around catastrophe. With few exceptions, most people don't want to hear about the imminent heat death of the earth. They'll just shrug their shoulders & ignore you - or, to quote A.R. Ammons, who wouldn't turn up the voltage when you know the lights are going out? At least apocalyptic religions offer the tease of redemption and eternal life. Good luck organizing, Mark. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Actually, the 'cadre' of the Seattle demonstrators were organized in response to what they see as a looming catastrophe. Mark, John Foster and I are trying to develop a theoretical alternative to the kind of deep ecology beliefs that moved them into action. It boils down to Marxism versus Zerzan's nihilism. > It's kind of hard to organize people around catastrophe. With few > exceptions, most people don't want to hear about the imminent heat > death of the earth. They'll just shrug their shoulders & ignore you - > or, to quote A.R. Ammons, who wouldn't turn up the voltage when you > know the lights are going out? At least apocalyptic religions offer > the tease of redemption and eternal life. > > Good luck organizing, Mark. > > Doug > >
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Doug, I'm not left totally distraught by the apostasy of Comrade Devine, or yours neither come to that. You are both good people and play your role, but you are not everybody. You might, as Lloyd George said of himself, straddle the fence until the iron enters your soul, but then you will get off and on the right side, I'm sure. But lots of other folks will be there before you. You say "It's kind of hard to organize people around catastrophe." Don't worry so much about looking for the lowest common denominator of public motivation; we're not competing with Rupert Murdoch. What we need to do is to address the issues, decide where we stand and act accordingly. But you know that. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood > Sent: 28 June 2000 19:58 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20871] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness > > > Jim Devine wrote: > > >I find your e-missives to be useless. Therefore, I've instructed the > >Eudora program to automatically transfer them to the trash bin. I > >recommend that others do so, too. > > Hmm, not very promising for "ORGANISING"! > > It's kind of hard to organize people around catastrophe. With few > exceptions, most people don't want to hear about the imminent heat > death of the earth. They'll just shrug their shoulders & ignore you - > or, to quote A.R. Ammons, who wouldn't turn up the voltage when you > know the lights are going out? At least apocalyptic religions offer > the tease of redemption and eternal life. > > Good luck organizing, Mark. > > Doug > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
I wrote: >>I find your e-missives to be useless. Therefore, I've instructed the >>Eudora program to automatically transfer them to the trash bin. I >>recommend that others do so, too. Doug writes: >Hmm, not very promising for "ORGANISING"! > >It's kind of hard to organize people around catastrophe. With few >exceptions, most people don't want to hear about the imminent heat death >of the earth. They'll just shrug their shoulders & ignore you - or, to >quote A.R. Ammons, who wouldn't turn up the voltage when you know the >lights are going out? At least apocalyptic religions offer the tease of >redemption and eternal life. > >Good luck organizing, Mark. In addition to the content, we should be conscious of the style used in preaching. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Good point. Seems to me that Ottawa has such an area, and doesn't Vancouver. I don't know about US cities. We don't suffer too much from pollution or development in this area, although sometimes when I pass farmers who are spraying I pray that my lungs are Roundup Ready.I guess the next step will be to genetically engineer farm babies to be herbicide tolerant. CHeers, Ken Hanly Rod Hay wrote: > Ken In addition, it might be useful to ban auto traffic in high density areas. It > would be difficult, but worth a debate in our major cities. My local paper this > morning predicts 60 to 70 extra deaths this summer (in a city of about half a > million) due to air pollution. Properly handled this should at least generate some > public discussion. > > Rod > > Ken Hanly wrote: > > > If there really is an emergency and people are convinced of that I don't see > > why rationing > > would not work. While I agree that public transportation should be supported, > > as long as the > > rich don't use it they will use their influence and power to sabotage attempts > > to subsidize a system they do not use. You are right of course about the growth > > of grey markets and black markets that still afford the well off superior > > treatment under rationing. THe same thing happens with our medicare system > > where doctors, and politicians jump queues or travel to the US but the system > > nevertheless works reasonably well--and would work much better if > > properly funded. If the rich are part of the rationing system then they have a > > stake in it and will be interested in seeing to it that it works. At least you > > show concern for the relative impact of policies on different income groups. > > Mark Jones apparently thinks this is fiddling while Rome burns. > > > > Jim Devine wrote: > > > > > At 09:41 PM 06/27/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > > Although I appreciate Jim Devine's argument for higher gas prices > > > > there is a definite income bias involved. The relatively well off can > > > > continue to drive their SUV's etc. while the lower middle classes will be > > > > priced right out of the automobile market. This saves oil but in a > > > > totally unfair way. THe large group of drivers who now enjoy relatively > > > > cheap gas can hardly be blamed for opposing a more progressive energy > > > > pricing policy if it threatens to end or curtail their enjoyment of > > > > automobiles while those well off continue as before. Why not ration > > > > gasoline as was done in wartime? Rationing by the market is rationing for > > > > the rich. > > > > > > Rationing is only a defensive maneuver, one that eventually gets weak as > > > the rich use their political connections and their ability to afford high > > > illegal-market prices. Though it worked during WW 2 in the US, how long > > > could it have lasted? > > > > > > Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the > > > amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting > > > many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of > > > the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move > > > toward the best W. European model. > > > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine > > -- > Rod Hay > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The History of Economic Thought Archive > http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html > Batoche Books > http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ > 52 Eby Street South > Kitchener, Ontario > N2G 3L1 > Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity production depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? Surely very little electricity is produced by burning diesel or gas. Or are you talking about cars that burn fuel and charge batteries that run them? There are also cars and trucks that run on batteries alone of course and these can be charged at regular outlets with electricity generated by water power, or less likely wind or solar power. What are we talking about? By the way there is also thermal power for heating, used quite a bit in Iceland for example. I use wood. With a good stove it is not all that polluting. Of course this is feasible only in certain locales. But this area is filled with crap wood, quaking aspens or white poplar. They are short lived and right now you wouldn't want to hug them unless you like squishing tent caterpillars As far as home heating is concerned surely there is less and less reliance on fossil fuels and more on electricity. Electricity can also be supplemented by solar panels and also storage with heat pumps etc. Does being twice as efficient in pollution terms mean that they produce twice the pollution for the samo amount of power :) Cheers, Ken Hanly. Brad De Long wrote: > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 10:46AM > > >Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the > >amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting > >many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of > >the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move > >toward the best W. European model. > > > >_ > > > >CB: Yes, and what about electric powered vehicles ? Do they depend > >on fosssil fuels ultimately ? > > Yes, but the power plants that generate electricity are roughly twice > as efficient in pollution terms as internal combustion engines.
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Ken In addition, it might be useful to ban auto traffic in high density areas. It would be difficult, but worth a debate in our major cities. My local paper this morning predicts 60 to 70 extra deaths this summer (in a city of about half a million) due to air pollution. Properly handled this should at least generate some public discussion. Rod Ken Hanly wrote: > If there really is an emergency and people are convinced of that I don't see > why rationing > would not work. While I agree that public transportation should be supported, > as long as the > rich don't use it they will use their influence and power to sabotage attempts > to subsidize a system they do not use. You are right of course about the growth > of grey markets and black markets that still afford the well off superior > treatment under rationing. THe same thing happens with our medicare system > where doctors, and politicians jump queues or travel to the US but the system > nevertheless works reasonably well--and would work much better if > properly funded. If the rich are part of the rationing system then they have a > stake in it and will be interested in seeing to it that it works. At least you > show concern for the relative impact of policies on different income groups. > Mark Jones apparently thinks this is fiddling while Rome burns. > > Jim Devine wrote: > > > At 09:41 PM 06/27/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > > Although I appreciate Jim Devine's argument for higher gas prices > > > there is a definite income bias involved. The relatively well off can > > > continue to drive their SUV's etc. while the lower middle classes will be > > > priced right out of the automobile market. This saves oil but in a > > > totally unfair way. THe large group of drivers who now enjoy relatively > > > cheap gas can hardly be blamed for opposing a more progressive energy > > > pricing policy if it threatens to end or curtail their enjoyment of > > > automobiles while those well off continue as before. Why not ration > > > gasoline as was done in wartime? Rationing by the market is rationing for > > > the rich. > > > > Rationing is only a defensive maneuver, one that eventually gets weak as > > the rich use their political connections and their ability to afford high > > illegal-market prices. Though it worked during WW 2 in the US, how long > > could it have lasted? > > > > Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the > > amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting > > many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of > > the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move > > toward the best W. European model. > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
At 04:36 PM 6/28/00 +0100, you wrote: >Jim, you are such a disappointment to me. "wheelchair-friendly busses"? >Gimme a break. There won't be these kinds of kindly options. hey, we've got them in Culver City, where I live. The engine is on top of the bus, so that the passenger compartment is much lower. The surrounding city of Los Angeles is buying a bunch of them, too (after MASSIVE popular criticism from all directions of the plan to continue buying diesel busses). >The W European model is not gas its flatus, please get your nose off the >deck and look at the global problem, man. You have *SO MUCH* to >contribute. Get with the fucking program. I find your e-missives to be useless. Therefore, I've instructed the Eudora program to automatically transfer them to the trash bin. I recommend that others do so, too. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
