Keith said: >Looking at it another way, even if it turns out that human-caused CO2 >emissions have nothing or vanishingly little to do with climate and >that there is no global warming, that it's all a >myth/mistake/communist propaganda or whatever, moves to cut CO2 >emissions are generally beneficial. Replace dinodiesel with >biodiesel, for instance, and you're cutting GG emissions, yes, but >you're also reducing the cancer risk by more than 90%.
Keith, there is so much to like in your perspective. Action to improve energy efficiency and increase environmental awareness is all to the good. Yet, I still question the selling of global warming. In spite of what may appear to be good underlying intentions, promoting fear-based propaganda of any kind primarily serves to deceive, manipulate and blind others. Such is not the road to social, scientific or any other form of enlightenment, IMHO. >Global warming >or not, we - the industrialised countries and especially the US - are >much too profligate with energy, especially fossil-fuel energy. >Regardless of emissions, it's a non-renewable resource and we're >wasting it. The climate change issue is doing more than anything else >to counter that. Energy efficiency is a general good, and there's a >hell of a lot of room for improvement. I agree, but segregate energy efficiency from resource conservation or harmful emissions. It is largely off-topic for this list, but I look for the day when we make practical use of the zero-point energy. If this scenario becomes reality then it may be that energy efficiency becomes relatively moot due to this energy's massive, universal and non-polluting availability. >But... But what exactly? What's the downside? What it'll cost the >economy? Will it really? Will it cost as much as the Y2K bill? That >didn't seem to wreck any economies that I noticed, everyone simply >paid up for this gross bit of idiocy and we never heard any more >about it. If it's a conspiracy it's a most strange one - where are >the usual suspects? Not quite where you'd expect them to be. Who >benefits, apart from everybody? I don't know if global warming serves anyone's conspiracy. Potential grant recipients may seek to be paid from the public treasury, and organizations may seek additional revenue by promoting some aspect of the global warming concern, but being self-serving is not conspiracy unless there is a knowing attempt to defraud others. If extensive resources are being expended on a wrongly defined problem then those resources are likely being misdirected while genuine problems go wanting. A relative few may thus benefit, but certainly not everybody. -- ...Warren Rekow Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
