On 9/2/2007 1:11:48 PM, Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sep 1, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > > OK, I > didn't explicitly mention that alternative means are now > > available but > > at prohibitively high costs explicitly....and I probably should > > have. The > > cost would be so high that going to sources that are considered > > green for > > the majority of world power need would cause a horrendous, long > > term world > > depression. So, we are sorta talking about flip sides of the same > > thing....not really differing much at all....if I read you right. > > It is not necessarily a foregone conclusion that using > less-polluting > energy sources will lead to global economic collapse or depression. > It > may even be that by reducing our current energy-spendthrift ways, we > may actually improve the global economy. It's > not like we're going to > burn money to drive our cars: much of that money will merely be > spent > differently. It seems to me that there is a bundle to be made.
I think that the focus on global warming when considering a non/minimally polluting energy generation strategy is a problem. I think the idea should be to minimize/eliminate pollution of any kind, at least to a degree that is environmentally and economically feasible. If we were to reduce pollutants substantially, I would expect that we would see significant health benefits and increased quality of life in industrial areas. Of course one has to distinguish between the pollution from energy generation sources (power plants and autos) and pollution from industrial process and manufacturing. They are two very different subjects. I suspect that minimizing pollution from energy generation is a more immediately achievable goal. Industrial and manufacturing sources entail a much greater dedication in that it means much greater changes to our lifestyles. xponent Acid Reign Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
