Original Message: ----------------- From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 21:36:39 +1000 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 381, Issue 3
>Because "depleting", ie burning, all the fossil fuels... that would >lead to warming worse than the worst projections. This is why we need >to legislate against fossil fuels. We simply can't burn it all. And, there are oil shales that we are beginning to find productive. For example, the Bartlett shale is producing oil, and there is a big new US play in the Appalacian mountains. So, I agree with Charlie, there's plenty more fossil fuels left to tap. We can burn fossil fuels as the world ecconomy grows for at least 100 years...that's not hte problem. I'm not sure that you commented on this, Charlie, or if it was in your 'round toit' bucket, but I don't see legislation being the answer because key countries, such as China, are not ruled by so ruled....and they gain by burning coal....even if others suffer. If global warming is a problem, they may be able to do things that actively counter it....such as sow the oceans with iron or inject sulpher dioxide in the Arctic. It would have side effects, but the data indicates that the Chinese leaders wouldn't mind side effects in Europe or the US or Russia, they'd just do what's best for them. My guess is something like that will happen if global warming becomes a significant problem in the mind of the leaders of China. I also think that the US would not risk war to stop them. No-one else would be in a position to stop them if they wanted to...except for Russia, which has the nuclear weapons to threaten total destruction of China and Russia as a consequence. Maybe the EU, but do Britian and France's nuclear weapons have the range to hit Bejing? Dan M. Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
