I've thought a bit, and I think I might have given another wrong impression. It's not that I don't think it's important for the US to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, not just its per capita emissions (as it has over the last decade). I've been on record here favoring an artificial raising of the cost of gasoline in the US by an additional 50 cents/gallon tax per year for the next 10 years (accompanied by tax rebates based inversely on income). I still favor it.
I also favor switching from coal to nuclear and wind/natural gas combos to decrease greenhouse gas emissions behind electricity production. But, I've added up the numbers, and if the US does all that, we should be able to cut emissions. But, let's say, magically, the US could half its per capita emissions in the next 20 years. We'd still see a massive increase in greenhouse gasses due to the rise from China and India (which is about to knock Russia out of 3rd place in total emissions). We need new technologies. I've blogged on this, and if folks are interested I'll put them on posts here, but the present technology doesn't work. Biofuels only work if the efficiency of creation of gasoline increases at least 10 fold. There are some radical new ideas (like right handed algae) that might but probably won't work. We might be able to use wind a lot more if there is a good long term storage technique for energy. There are multiple possibilities, but most won't work....so we need to try many to find a winner. So, my argument is that, by all means, cut US emissions, but realize that's only a small part of the puzzle. The real contribution the West can make is funding research in multiple areas that could underlie a technology that works. Putting it in football terms, it's like working to have a number of crossing passes through the box. Most of them don't end up in a goal. But, there is a good chance that if you keep doing it, one will. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
