Ecolog: Quite! But I suppose that any decline in support for romantically appealing "alternatives" that can thus easily convince the taxpayers to support more and more subsidies for "green" fleecing is encouraging. That means that a whopping 34% see through the schemes for what they are.
Nonetheless, even if anthropogenic global warming also turns out to be hyperflummoxing technically, it still may be just the surrogate needed to put the brakes on energy waste. Certainly, if one looks at replacing the waste fraction (Advertizing signs, inefficient transport, concentrated generation) one will get numbers in infeasible territory. The message that has got to get out is that, regardless of the reasons used, energy use has got to decline, and if it does, everybody will be better off (except for the gamblers that don't care what happens to their children and grandchildren). Cutting just the waste fraction out need cause no pain for anybody in the world--on the contrary, it has more potential than all the "alternative" profit-centers on the block, and they won't even cost the energy producers a dime, because they will still be able to gouge their customers ever more, out of proportion to the reduction in use. If we need more energy reduction, just going to bed at night need not be a huge sacrifice--and the list goes on, all without the flocks of yellow-bellied grantsuckers eating the seed corn, if any is left over after its conversion to alcohol fuelishness. This shot across the bow in the "economic" (laughable, eh?) sphere (irony intended) will seem like a pebble compared to the coming skyrocketing of energy PRICES, not to mention the VALUE lost in human habitat (even if you forget all the other species and habitats that will go first, concurrently, and afterwards) degradation and cultural chaos. The gamblers may be some of the last to feel the full weight of the resolving of the real factors that influence life quality at a greatly reduced level of ATTAINABILITY--forget mere SUSTAINABILITY! But even the Emperiors will have to do without their gold toilets, not to mention having to beef up their defenses at every level. WT Apolgies for getting off into opinion territory . . . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Giesen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable Energies > Odd headline - I read it as "they don't think they will work" while the > actual reductions in support are from 4 - 8%, and, for two of the > technologies, way above 50% support (66 and 61%). It is "just a tad less > faith" instead. > > Tom Giesen > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Geoff Patton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (originally seen in post by Sam White of Cedar Rock Farm/CSA) >> >> Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable Energies: >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change- >> renewable-energy<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy>( >> http://tinyurl.com/56hoah). >> >> Cordially yours, >> >> Geoff Patton, Ph.D. >> Wheaton, MD 20902 >> > > > > -- > Tom Giesen > 629 NW 29th St. > Corvallis, OR 97330 > (541) 554-4162 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1846 - Release Date: 12/12/2008 6:59 PM
