At 23:55 12-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > Back then, only a small percentage of our population realized what we were
> > doing to the environment, and realized the benefits of green power.
>
>No hard feelings, but I was there at the time.
What, you lived in The Netherlands back then? By sheer coincidence, so did I...
> >For many years they were ridiculed, and considered a fringe group,
>treehuggers
> > who didn't know what they were talking about.
>
>That's certainly not true.
Maybe not in the US. Note however that I said "our population" -- since
it's well known that I live in The Netherlands, it should be quite obvious
that the phrase "our population" referred to the Dutch population, not the
Americans. Back then, proclaiming you were an environmentalist was enough
to be considered a lunatic.
> >Politicians didn't care about the environment, so nothing pro-environment
>was done.
>
>That is a false statement, at least in the US.
Again, I was referring to the Dutch situation.
> > It's sad, really. Politicians turning pro-environment, not for the
> > environment but to look good in the eyes of the public when it's election
> > time...
>
>Ah, I though you wanted democracy. Are you suggesting the politicians do
>things that the public doesn't want them to do?
Of course not; I never made that claim. What is sad, is the reason why
politicians suddenly developed a pro-environment stance: not because of
"yes, we must clean up our act" but because of "hey, this is popular, so if
I claim to support it I will get re-elected". IOW, they didn't do it for
the environment but for their careers... :(
> > Yet, despite that enthusiasm, green power still isn't as big as it could
> > have been. Now why do I get the feeling that there are forces at work here
> > that try to slow things down?
>
>Like the laws of physics?
More like forces that want to protect current economic interests.
> > Forces that would have a lot to lose, should
> > green power get a large market share. Forces like, say, the oil business?
>
>Jeroen, engineering programs don't work and you blame oil companies.
But Dan, engineering programs *do* work. If they didn't work, we wouldn't
have solar panels, windmills producing energy, and other sources of
renewable energy. Sure, it still requires a lot of development to make it
cheaper and more efficient, but that's no reason to claim that those
programs don't work.
Further, I don't blame the oil companies for "engineering programs that
don't work". I do suspect however that they can and will do everything they
can to protect their current interests -- interests to which green power is
a potential threat.
>As I stated in a previous post, big oil isn't
>all that big, as corporations go.
Every quarter, a table is published here in newspapers, listing the 10
Netherlands-based companies with the highest profits. The numbers 2-10
vary, but 1st place is typically taken by Shell, with huge profits.
Typically, you'll first get Shell's profits, than a wide gap, and then the
profits of the other nine companies. It's not uncommon for Shell to have
made just as much or even a bigger profit than the other nine companies
combined.
I'd say that makes oil companies qualify as "big" -- that, and the fact
that the oil business measures profits in billions of dollars.
>What I find very frustrating is that you seem to be sure that the
>engineering problems are ficticious.
I never made that claim.
>Nuclear is green, but if you could argue that it wasn't,
Say WHAT??? No what in the world gave you that absolutely wrong idea? In my
34 years in this life, I've watched countless programs and read numerous
newspaper and magazine articles about it, visited websites of various
environmentalist organisations, and talked to many environmentalists (and
became one myself). But NOT A SINGLE ONE of these sources ever claimed that
nuclear energy is green -- they all claimed exactly the opposite.
Then you come along and claim nuclear energy is green. Now who do you think
will be more credible: the entire collection of programs, articles,
environmentalist groups and individual environmentalists, or a single
individual who, of all places, works in the oil business -- the one
business that has a lot to lose?
Really, Dan, nuclear energy is *not* green.
>you'd get rid of the other real big rival. You could even support green
>power, as Shell does, because you know that the engineering difficulties
>will keep it priced too high to be a real competition.
Which would also give you an opportunity to control the speed of
developments (read: slow them down) and keep the price artificially high...
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
