> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Andrew Crystall > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:26 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: This is not a False Alarm... > > On 9 Apr 2007 at 16:10, Dan Minette wrote: > > > 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. > Assuming zero gains from the technology deployed, true.
I'm certain that the analysis included ordinary increases in technological efficiencies....but not breakthroughs (which can't be scheduled). For reference purposes, Moore's law would reflect the former, but the breakthrough of QM based physics did not. >But even > assuming zero advance from todays technologies, arround 35% of the > costs would be recouped from more efficient processes. Haven't processes been getting more efficient all along? Haven't greenhouse gases still increased tremendously. >Assuming > technology which should be reaching the market within a year, 40%. > This trend...is going to continue. Then, why hasn't it been seen since the cost of fuel has gone up through the roof? It's been seven years since the price of natural gas has gone up in California. It's been eight years since the low of 10 dollars/barrel oil prices. It's approaching two years since the near record price in the summer of '05. Even so, the consumption of fossil fuels continues to go up. Unless all of the efficiencies that have been developed have only been developed in the last two years and have just not hit the market, it makes sense that improved efficiencies have already been factored into the usage...leaving the 50 trillion level standing. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
