Comments below.

--- Michael Meuser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Whether I think there's certainty or not is not important.  The point
> is that either way, the changes we take to address the possibility
> will lead us down a more sustainable and equitable path.

Now this I have a problem with.  I think it is somewhat dishonest.
Support the cutbacks because of Global Warming (but shhhh don't tell
anybody I have other agendas).  If you think the cuts should be made due
to sustainability and equity considerations then make an argument on those
grounds.



> > > delay won't help when there are alternatives readily available.  If
> we
> >
> > Exactly what are these alternatives?
> >
> There are so many things that have been proposed and advocated
> over the years it's hard to know where to start.  To begin with
> consider:
>
> * energy use reduction and the reduction of all associated
> negatives (toxics, particlulates, dams and displacement, dams and
> fish...),

Well, there are ways of reducing energy consumption and believe it or not
but most utility companies have to engage in a variety of conservation
campaigns and measures.


> * alternative energy (hydrogen, fuel cells, wind, PV),

All of these are quite expensive currently compared to energy from fossil
fuels.  Don't you think energy makes life better?  I do.


> * smaller more efficient homes
>
> * less travel (especially air and private auto
>
> * comfortable, efficient, low cost mass transit,

Have you ever tried mass transit in some areas?  It doesn't work well.
Mass transit is great in some areas such as Washington, D.C.  I lived
there for over five years and never owned a car.  However, Los Angeles is
another matter altogether.



> * local production for local use (reduce energy related to
> transportation of goods, resources, workers),

This is wrong.  The idea of international trade can allow for goods to be
made more cheaply, i.e. more efficient.  International trade, IMO should
be encouraged from a sustainabiltiy stand point because it is possible for
you can have a higher standard of living and less of an impact on the
environment.


> * taking a hard look at corporate charters and reworking them so
> that corporations serve society instead of the other way around.

Corporations exist to make a profit.  You can tell them that they have a
new set of goals, but I doubt it will work.  Socialism usually leads to
poor outcomes.  However, you could come up with incentive mechanisms that
make it in the best interest of corporations to do somethings and avoid
doing others.



> Much of this would already be realized if there hadn't been
> organized resistance against such progress.  That's just a start but
> you get the idea.  I hope that others can fill in the blanks.
> >
> > You have assumed that there is a problem.  The failures of the
> hypothesis
> > to account for a variety of observations indicates the hypothesis is
> > lacking.  However, some actions that would help reduce the problem of
> > warming, assuming the climate is warming, carry their own benefits, so
> > taking these actions would advisable.
> >
> >
> > > turned upside down.  Even if we don't fix global warming, we will
> > > have implemented alternatives (less consumption, less inequality,
> > > move away from fossil fuels, banning of some toxics, etc.) that will
> > > make the life left a better life.  Better than nothing.  So it seems
> >
> > Really?  Here is a suggestion, and I am not just being flippant, go to
> > your breaker box and turn off all the electricity to your house and
> unhook
> > all the phones and give your car keys to your neighbor and then see
> how
> > much better life is.  Try it for a week.  (Hey I am being nice, I
> didn't
> > tell him to turn off his hot water heater....).
> >
> That IS flippant. It does not have to be all or nothing.

Yes it does.  Do you know how much energy places like the U.S., Canada,
and Europe consume in electricity?  Think terawats.  The idea that you
could replace even half of the current consumption of the U.S. with things
like solar, wind and geothermal is a pipe nightmare.  First, the amount of
environmental damage done would be massive.  (Think along the lines of
covering Nevada with solar panels...yes the entire state).  Imagine the
cost.

Plus with only half the electricity available to you, you couldn't even
run your refridgerator.  So forget the breaker box, empty out the fridge
and unplug it for a month and see how you like it.  Sure it is possible,
but I bet you'll end up throwing away more food.


> >
> > > the ethical choice is to embrace GW.  Even if it isn't true and the
> > > Earth is not warming, the alternatives are needed for a host of
> other
> > > reasons.
> >
> > Soooo, then you shouldn't have a problem with the above suggestion.
> Try
> > it for a week and then get back to us, I'd really love to hear what
> you
> > think of the experience.
> >
> Again, think about alternatives.  The world of ideas and ingenuity is
> much larger than the one you see.

I don't have to think about these alternatives, I know about these
alternatives.  Suppose we built a gigantic 100 megawatt wind farm.  What
would happen to the local bird population?  Can we say quisinart?  Imagine
acres and acres of windmills, access roads to those windmills, all the
resources used to make the windmills, and the pollution creatd in making
them?  You can't just say, well windmills don't cause pollution therefore
it is better than fossil fuels, you have to consider the whole thing from
beginning to end.  The production of both facilities, the maintnence, the
impact on the local environment, and yes even the cost to consumers.  If
you want to double people's electric bills forget about it they aren't
going to stand for it.

=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/