On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Trent Shipley <[email protected]> wrote:
snip > If you want to solve global warming it better not cost me my job, > increase my electricity bill, make me pay more for transportation, > sacrifice the quality or quantity of my transportation, or otherwise > degrade my lifestyle. > > Also, it better not prevent increasing prosperity in less developed > countries. Indeed, it better not reduce the rate at which prosperity > increases. > > If you can do those things, then we can talk about fighting global warming. Global warming is the wrong problem to solve, but solving the correct one, low cost energy that carbon neutral or negative solves at least the CO2 buildup and global warming to the extent that contributes. It's an engineering problem. It happens I have worked out one way, a method to reduce the cost of lifting power satellite parts to GEO so that space based solar energy could displace fossil fuels on price. There is at least one *other* way that gets energy cost into the range where synthetic gasoline can be made for a dollar a gallon. I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is preached by the global warming community. Far as I know engineers have never been asked how they would refreeze the Arctic Ocean or slow the glaciers sliding into the sea. Keith _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
