Sorry for not getting back sooner, it's been a little hectic in the last couple of days.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:10 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap/junk science <Snip> > > > >I personaly am not 100% sure, that CO2 and other green house gasses are the > >cause of global warming, > > The case for it being the main cause is extremely strong and grows > stronger by the day. > > >in fact that I am totaly 100% certian about global > >warming, because I perceve ( correcly or incorrectly ) varables, that I > >don't know have been accounted for. Sorry, I ment to say " I'm not 100% certian ", but, then again there are very few things that I'm 100% certian about. > > So does everybody else. And what this reduces to is an argument > between risk assessment and the Precautionary Principle. If you're > going to go for risk assessment - ie, no action until we know for > sure - then there'll be a parting of the ways between you and me. > I'm not saying there should be no action. Should we assume that it is going to be a worse case senario? I don't think it would be a good idea, On the other hand, it would be a bad idea to asume that it is not going to happen at all. I personaly am operating on the premis that they may be correct, and hopeing that they are not ( because of my doubts ), even if they are not correct, I would be doing it, because in the long run it will be healthier and cost efficient. In the last 2 weeks, 3 new water efficient toilets were installed in my house. In the next week or so, an appointment will be made, to have my old regenerator picked up - and a new 'Energy Star' rated regenerator installed. In a month or so an appointment is going to be made to have the 25 yr old furnace in my house removed and a new 'Energy Star' rated furnace installed. We have to wait this long due to financial reasons. This summer, I hope to have the funds available to put in a 'whole house fan' and more insulation in the attic ( currently only R-20 / R-24 ), and bring it up to over R-36. Sometime in the next few years, I hope to replace ( or cover ) the current wood siding with stucco, including the addition of another R-12 of insulation. I have chose stucco, because, less maintenance will be needed - and the less maintenance, means less energy needed. > > >OTOH, I am sure, that there is currently a disturbing > >trend, that needs to be delt with, be it short term or long term. > > Dealt with how? > While I am in favor of cutting back, I don't see that it's possible to cut back to a total carbon neutral economy. Nor do I see to many ways of doing it, that does not leave the lower income brackets ( that can least afford the change ), and give most of the benefits to the rich. At this point, I would be happy, to see a 0 ( zero ) net increase from one year to the next - say no increase in 2006 levels, from 2005. Then work back, to 2004 and once 2004 levels have been reached, work back to 2003 levels and so on. I believe jumping back 15 years in one jump would be economically damaging on a national and world level - and would affect the rich the least. I also believe that everyone, not just developed nations, should cut back ( or just maintain levels for less developed nations). Indeed, the less developed should have an easier time of increasing production without increasing levels - perhaps a 'green house gas' credit should be given to developed nations that help less developed nation to increase productivity without increasing the levels. > > > >As simple humans we can only look back a few thousand years or so, and > >say > > > >what has happened with any great degree of certainty. Beyond that we > >only > > > >have educated guesses to work with, and the farther we look back, the > > > >greater amount of error that is possible, of guessing wrong. As for > > > >looking to the future, we still can't predict the weather a month from > >now > > > >with anything more than a guess, and again the farther we try and look, > >and > > > >say doing this action will cause that effect - the greater the chances of > > > >being wrong ( anybody that says other wise ought to be playing the > >lottery > > > >and winning regularly ). > > > > > > Please don't confuse climate with weather! > > > > > >I don't think I am, > > You are, in using your view that "we still can't predict the > *weather* a month from now with anything more than a guess" to > indicate the folly of taking steps to remediate behaviour which is > sending the *climate* veering out of control. My bad, I was using weather as a comparison / example only of how hard it is to look to the future, but, failed to explain that. < snip > > > > So the egg came first or was it the chicken, but what's it matter if > there's a disease spreading that's about to wipe out all chickens and > us with it? > A couple of analogies that might fit is: You try and breed resistance into the chicken before it's too late. If necessary you isolate as many healthy chickens as possible and use them as breeding stock, once resistance has been successfully introduced. Another analogy that might be closer, is the fate of the American Chestnut. They are still around, but they barely get old enough to breed, before they are struck down, but, some of them manage to live long enough to breed, and of consequence in the last few years, a few varieties have developed resistance, and live longer. > > > >Man sequesters tons of carbon every year, in forms that will last for a > >long > > > >time. If man was to sequester all the carbon that he has released in > >the > > > >last 2000+ yrs, the world would be turned on it's ear and we will have > >even > > > >more problems. > > > > > > How so? > > > >"How so" what? The comment about man sequestering carbon, release of > >carbon for 2000+ years, or about the world being turned on it's ear? > > How so will the world be turned on its ear and we'll have even more > problems by sequestering carbon? > I was talking about a totaly carbon neutral world, even to the point that the CO2 from 200 years of fossil fuel use is sequestered - my bad for not making that clear. I don't believe that it would be possible to sequester 200 yrs of CO2 with out cutting back to an absolutely extreme degree, that would cause severe world wide economic hardship and the cutting back of funds that otherwise go to beneficial programs, and that would be the reason for the problems. < Snip > > > >I believe that it will turn the world on it's ear. Jet travel would > >almost cease, or become a thing for the rich ( that could afford to have an > >equel amout of carbon squestered ), the cost of use of mudane things like > >concreat, computers, steel, comunications, ( such as TV's, radios, > >satalights and other forms other than face to face ), farming ( other than > >biological forms of power - to include biodiesel ), even the transfer of > >food from agrculture areas to cities would skyrocket - if we went to a world > >wide carbon neutral style of living. > > I'm not sure what you're talking about Greg. Sequestering all the > excess carbon we've emitted in 2,000 or 200 years, returning to 1990 > levels as proposed, and going to a worldwide carbon neutral style of > living are three different things. I think that I explained it a little better above. Perhaps a little more: In order to sequester 200 yrs of CO2, I thing that extreme measures will have to be taken. Fossil fuel will have to be rationed, and while ships might be able to get away with biofuels, I know of no direct bio replacement for JP-8. As such, the cost of flying would skyrocket. The same thing for rocket fuel, so the cost of modern communications, would also go up as fewer satellites became available or even if the satellites continued to work through the number of people wanting to use them would go up as the world population continued to rise. Cheap steel and concrete is possible through the use of cheap fossil fuels. Many years ago, England's forests were devastated, until they started using coal to make iron - while it was carbon neutral, the rate that the forests grew couldn't keep up with the demand. > > >Could cities the size on Tokyo, Paris, London, or New York and there current > >population exist in a carbon neutral society? I personaly don't think so. > > Yes, though not without changes. Very many of the world's largest > cities would neither be able to feed themselves nor to cope with > their waste production problems were it not for city farms. Yet > governments and authorities tend to harrass city farmers. In New York > the authorities harrass city farmers in various ways. The changes > required seem to be happening anyway, for a variety of reasons, and > in spite of official apathy/antipathy. Now there's a surprise! LOL! Agreed! I know first hand! I had 2 plots in a community garden, the city thought that it would be nice to have a paved trail through the park above the community garden. So what did they do? They pushed the road base ( for the dirt road ) right up to the fence ( pulling out the railroad tie's that help divert water from the road ) and put in the trail, ripping out / tearing up most of the plants on the hillside. Because they did that, I was totaly washed out twice last year. Except for a couple of lettuce plants that survived, the time and effort I had in my garden was a total loss, 2 inches of clay and gravel over seedlings. I also had sunflowers growing in front of my house, only to have them disappear, a week or so before they were ripe. Melons in the back yard were stunted by the tall tree's in a neighbors yard - it didn't matter that they were planted in the sunniest spot. < snip > > >Of this I have no doubt. It is better to teach a man how to fish, than to > >give him a fish, but, once a man is tauch how to fish, how many men will be > >contented to fish, when fish are being handed out? > > Many. What point are you making Greg? Are you arguing against global > warming now or the dreaded Welfare State? LOL! > I disagree with both. > Anyway, I don't like this line about fish and fishing, I'm always > seeing it and I think it misses the point quite often. Fishing is > hunter-gathering. Find an analogy that applies to husbandry. > Ok, how about: Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man Aquaponics, he eats for a lifetime. > >As it has happened though out history, there are always those people that > >would sit back and let others do the work while they do nothing in return, > >and still expect to be fed. > > You mean the rich and greedy? No you don't. How does this relate to > the end of fossil fuels equating to the end of the fight against > world hunger? > Not just the wealthy, I'm including those that rely on the welfare system. As far as I'm concerned. if you don't contribute something useful (even if it is watching the kids of people that go to work ), you don't eat. As for the end of fossil fuels, and how it relates to world hunger: Currently almost every group that works against world hunger, relies on cheep fossil fuel to distribute food. I believe that as the cost of fuel goes up, then that is that much more food, that can be distributed for a given amount of money. Subsequently there are two choices: Use the same amount of funds to distribute less food ( less food - less weight - lower fuel cost ). Use more money to compensate for increased fuel cost. I hope this cleared up things. Greg H. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
