Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> Fortunately, the graphs I have seen for carbon dioxide in the air and
> the like, and reports from people whom I respect, have all suggested
> that the problem is human-caused and that therefore the solution is
> not hugely expensive.
Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded:
But what if it's both and we are exacerbating a natural cycle?
Could be.
Could it be like rolling a boulder over hillside prone to an
avalanche? And even if any of the above scenario's are only
slightly true, what is the most _conservative_ approach? ....
The most conservative approach is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
sharply.
We know that greenhouse gases do have some effect. The question is
how much? If the effect is small, as it must be if the changes we see
are natural, then we need to make bigger reductions.
Reductions mean, for example, increasing the funding and subsidy of
public transportation, and encouraging people to use it. Empty buses
are not good. To get people to shift over, the action has to be
dramatic. One way is to make and buses gratis to use and, at the same
time, sharply increasing the tax on carbon in gasoline -- not by the
US$0.10 per gallon (US$0.379 per liter) that environmentalists have
advocated (and lost) but by a much higher amount.
I don't know what the plans would be for gases such as methane. On
the one hand, `natural gas', i.e., fossil methane, has less carbon per
unit of energy produced when it burns, so it is better than coal. On
the other hand, when it leaks, it goes into the atmosphere where it
absorbs more infrared than carbon dioxide. It is a more dangerous
`greenhouse' gas. In the early 1990s, leaks from the former Soviet
natural gas pipeline system were a serious issues. Cows and termites
release a great deal of methane into the atmosphere; more research
would have to be undertaken to deal with this, too, not to mention
less expensive voltaic cells, seaweed and other biological stuff to
alcohol, and the like. In other words, the government would have to
sharply increase funding for a very wide variety of university
research projects.
Also, the conservatives would insist that all cities provide no-fee
`white' bicycles for people to pick up, ride, and then drop off.
The conservative approach means taxing home heating oil and gas and
encouraging people to wear sweaters. It means encouraging yet more
insulation. It means changing light fixtures so they do not send
light into the sky, where it is wasted.
In addition to conservation, the US government would have to spend tax
payers' money on many different research projects for hydrogen or
hydrogen-boron fusion -- not a billion dollars a year, or 10 billion
dollars a year, but a billion or 10 billion dollars a month. The
expenditures would have to rival US taxpayer spending on Iraq.
Because of the `free rider' problem, the money will have to come from
taxes. Although there will be some people who act to reduce or change
the source of their energy use even though others do not, few are like
that. As a practical matter, few people are saints. It is like the
convention that everyone drives on a particular side of the road, on
the left in Great Britain, and on the right in the US: everyone needs
to follow the convention.
In a James Bond movie, you might enjoy a scene in which our hero
drives in the on-coming lane; but outside a movie, life in the
on-coming lane is short and nasty.
Although the US is more energy efficient than it was 30 years ago, the
US is built around the use of fossil fuels and a transition is
difficult and expensive.
In my experience, people who advocate doing little or nothing are
people who do not have children and who do not care for the future of
their neighbors' children. (They say that they expect someones'
children to invent solutions, but no one has any confidence that
unknown inventions will be made, or if made, will be less expensive
that acting now.)
All I can say is that I hope that the environmentalists are right and
that those who say the changes are natural or from `exacerbating a
natural cycle' are wrong. If the current changes are even partly
natural -- which they might be -- the cost and suffering is higher.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
