> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: This is not a False Alarm... > > Well, with the latest consensus report on > anthropogenic global warming, will the poo-pooers > finally be convinced? I doubt it. I was alarmed > enough, especially WRT 'a third of all animal species > at risk of extinction' within the next century, that I > walked around my apt., trying to see what else I could > do about my energy consumption. I don't want to drop > my thermostat lower than the already-set 60oF > (bedrooms are colder) because of the risk of freezing > pipes (the apt. is above a barn, with all sides > exposed to the wind), but did find a forgotten bedroom > TV plugged in. Now I unplug my VCR and TV at night > etc., plan to get a wind-up alarm clock to replace the > electric one I currently use, and will replace closet > lights with fluorescents (re: earlier discussion on > feeling 'odd' under them, I do also, although not to > the extent of nausea or full-blown headache). > Fortunately for me, I get great natural light inside > during the day.
I realize you want to do what is right, and I don't mean this personally, but the type of actions you are taking, if practiced by all people in the developed world (including say, the US, W. Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and S. Korea), would slow global warming by about a year. It is significantly less than what is needed to meet Kyoto, and that would only delay global warming by about three years. I'll google the exact figures, but the type of action that would stop the increase in global temperatures in about 10 years (not reverse it but stop the increase, would require the US to cut its emission levels by about 80%. The best estimate of the cost of stopping global warming that I've seen is about 50 trillion dollars, worldwide. Spending this amount his would result in a worldwide depression that would make us appreciate how mild the Great Depression really was. That doesn't mean the situation is hopeless...but it means _everyone_ taking an honest appraisal of the costs and practicality of _every_ proposed course of action before anything is done. I've already proposed some modest suggestions for cutting fuel usage: raising the tax on gasoline by 50 cents/gal/year for the next 10 years. It would not be unreasonable to include the same type of tax on fossil fuels used in power plants....think of them all as carbon taxes. The money could be reimbursed to people with tax credits/cuts which would keep it as an incentive to change without it bankrupting lower income people. Nuclear power should be allowed to compete as a near zero greenhouse gas emitter, along with other forms of energy (such as solar or wind). My guess is that wind power could, under these circumstances, provide about 1%-2% of our total energy needs within 15 years under such a regime, with nuclear providing maybe 15%. Solar power could get up to 0.1%. But, it wouldn't matter what I or you guess, if it is practical, folks would find a way of doing it. But, that wouldn't stop global warming. It would, probably, delay it a few years and minimize the impact before we can develop technologies based on new science. There are a few candidates for that already: nanotech solar power, fusion power, and to a lesser extent, biopower. My suggestion has always been that we spend money on the science now, so we can have engineering in 30 years. That's a practical time frame. But, I note that this sort of view is unpopular with almost all of the camps. Maybe that proves its right. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
