On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:28 -0700, you wrote: >It always amuses me to see objections to renewable sources >couched in terms of "how well could (solar, wind, waves, >algae, whatever) supply today's consumption of (fuel, plastics, >tires, whatever)?" Not only are today's sources unsustainable, >today's consumption is unsustainable. There is no need for >renewable sources to match present consumption -- part of >the solution will HAVE to be a radical change in consumption >and lifestyle. You don't hear that much, tho, maybe cuz it's >not a very popular notion among those who benefit from the >status quo.
I don't think there's such a thing as a proposed sustainable source which could singled-handedly supply all of our needs without having some massive environmental drawback and I think that it's a pity these objections are used as conversation stoppers. I ask about biofuels' limitations to solve all of our needs, in the present or as should be lessened by conversation, because I think it just has to be asked, and not because I want to forestall conversation or ignore the need to look at consumption and discuss it, but I agree with you, there is a pattern there of failure to discussion conservation. I think the question of why one doesn't hear more about conservation from some folks is worth discussing. It's hard for me to answer. To force someone to conserve you have to violate their rights, or at least I think you do, so I am less inclined to think about it. Maybe the other way, in a market system, is to raise prices (which would mean forcing the supplier to do so? or identifying and removing artificial supports from the supplier?) and get each individual consumer and company to start to see very clearly that they need to consume less, if only from a microecomic point of view. There are many other issues there, such as finding other ways for particularly hazardous environmental impacts to be reflected in the price of a good, but anyway, those are some thoughts for now. I have to agree that we have a major problem, in a present semi-broken system, with the suspension of clearly-in-need-of-addressing over-consumption of very limited resources problems, in the name of letting the system take care of it. But that hasn't happened quickly enough to forestall problems, it seems. I think, one thing is we need to stop thinking that "laissez-faire" means "do-nothing", as a political-economic system. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
