On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Charlie Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> 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. > > You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural > mathematician), but my chemistry is fine... The US uses about 20 million bbs of oil per day. How much electric power would it take to make that much synthetic oil. (I have worked it out but I would appreciate someone else doing it to check my numbers.) >> I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is >> preached by the global warming community. > > Um, exactly what is this "global warming community" that preaches a "need to > suffer"? That looks like just another straw man to me. There are nutters on > both sides of the politics of climate, but the people really concerned about > taking action are busy showing how you can live very similarly to the way you > do now, without being so wasteful. Most of the science and engineering of > starting to live sustainably is no-brainer stuff that's easy to implement. > Sure, we do need a few big-ticket items and the space based solar that you've > been advocating for years may well be one of those, but in the short-term > there's a lot individuals and communities can do to green their homes, > businesses and towns that will have at worst a very small affect on standard > of living. Dr. David Mackay has put a lot of effort into this and doesn't think so. His analysis is for the UK, but something similar applies to the rest of the world as well. > Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are small > steps that if taken by large numbers of people can massively lower the demand > for energy. That's not as true as most people hope. All the saving you can make in a year are blown on one short aircraft trip. >How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in >the US and Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't >preaching a "need to suffer". > > What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with "business as usual" > then a lot of people will suffer. If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will *die* in famines and resource wars. Keith _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
