Moving subthread to sci.environment.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Lewis
<simonlewis2001@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:10:27 +0200
<87r6logayk.fsf@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Saturday 25 August 2007 01:56 : \____
>>
>>> To a lesser extent, there are some individuals in
>>> sci.environment who would somehow try to deny the data that
>>> the Earth is globally warming.
>>
>> Be aware that one oil giant has spent *at least* $30 million on shills that
>> spread the Big Lie.
>
> As a bit of a "tree hugger" myself, I am glad to find someone like
> yourself not afraid to spread the truth.
>
> Can you please post some facts about this because most of my friends
> think I am a bit silly and "over the top" when I tell them that Global
> Warming and UFOs are being covered up by the MS agents in the Penthouse
> who are nothing more than MSShills and Marketeers (selling their
> products).
Dunno about hard facts, but one clearly can see the
shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap from NASA data. Since,
as everyone should know, a melting ice cube takes heat to
melt (keeping the meltwater at the freezing point, give or
take), this may lead to a *decrease* in average temperature
(though that's rather unlikely), or will at least mitigate
global warming sufficiently to confuse the issue, in some
areas. There are also effects relating to ocean salinity.
But the evidence is clear: the northern ice cap is shrinking.
Man-made? Probably. I wish I could be certain.
Personally, I'm more curious as to what to do about it. There
are several courses of action I can see:
- Crash the economy NOW. The general idea would be to
jack up interest rates and make such a mess of the global
world economy that most factory production comes to a
screeching halt, throwing the world into a state which
may make the Great Depression of the 1930's and 1940's
a tiny dip in comparison. Fewer factories running,
less greenhouse gas emissions and less employment. Less
employment, less commuting (at least in many developed
countries), and less greenhouse gas emissions. Of course
the misery caused by this option will be rather nasty.
I'm not sure this won't happen anyway; Mexico's oil
fields are showing signs of petering out -- and rather
quickly, in the next 10 years or so. Saudi Arabia and
Iraq might last a little longer. Iran may be trying to
plan for its future, but someone really confused things
as they continue to grope for the nuclear solution.
Iraq may also want the Nuclear solution, and may even
be better off in the long run, as their oil output is
currently fairly small, because of US occupation issues
and internal strife.
- Accelerated "boondoggle" research into solving the
problem using so-called renewable fuels, including
nuclear (which I for one do not count as renewable,
and there are issues regarding environmental damage
therewith; however, it does help to reduce CO2 emissions
AFAICT). Didn't work during the Carter era, and I'm
not sure how well it will work now.
Note that, given current photovoltaic technology, we'd
have to cover a sizable fraction of the US's area to
pick up where coal leaves off. Most US coal consumption
goes into electric power (!!).
- SNAFU, letting market forces take things as they will and
otherwise ignoring the problem. As oil peters out fuel
synthesizers will come online, making a bit of a mess
of things (the residual goo from so-called "clean coal"
isn't easily handled, as I understand it, and is probably
rather radioactive). Hydrogen fueled affairs will be
interesting, as hydrogen cannot be mined, only synthesized;
the energy has to come from somewhere. Ideally, additional
photovoltaics could handle that -- but PVs have their own
special problems, unless we can reduce their manufacturing
costs. There are enticing hints in that direction, so
we'll see.
- Subsidizing oil and coal companies on the rather
interesting (but probably totally wrong!) premise that
the environmental greenies are damaging the economy by
frightening the populace.
Hmm...are we doing that now? I'm a little confused as to
the Administration's energy policy...
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
