Ronnie:
No offense taken. Growth management is a bear of an issue.
First, let me say that we cannot stop people from moving into the
State. Some have thought of building a wall at the border, but it
would be unconstitutional. (Didn't Oregon try this once?)
Second, admittedly Florida is addicted to growth. We still have
tax incentives and other things established decades ago when the
State was trying to "fill up," and despite repeated attempts those
incentives have not been removed. So, certain Florida law
exacerbates the problem.
Other Florida law, however, tries to manage growth for
environmental protection, etc. The 1985 Growth Management Act in
Florida is one of the most progressive in the country. But in
times of recession, it's hard to enforce it. Believe me, we in the
agency try, and we have the scars to prove it.
Given the projected growth, it would be irresponsible not to
prepare for it. If the infrastructure isn't there (water, sewer,
roads, schools, etc.) you end up with a lot of private wells,
septic tanks, dirt roads, and uneducated kids, etc. We have a
MAJOR problem with septic tanks in this State. (The paradox, of
course, is that building infrastructure itself stimulates growth.
What's a planner to do?) If we don't build a desalination plant in
Tampa, they're going to suck the water out of Lake Rousseau and
other rural areas.
Okay, before you jump, obviously conservation can mitigate a lot of
the growth in consumption. And we're trying: bans on lawn
watering, xeriscape, low-use shower heads, reuse of treated
wastewater, etc., etc. Granted, not enough yet, but we're trying.
Energy - If you look at the numbers, conservation and solar power,
etc., won't get us off fossil fuels without a HUGE drop in the
standard of living. I'm talking massive unemployment and squalor.
(Granted, again, we don't do enough to conserve energy. Because of
my job, I know a little about power plants.) I'm saying fusion
energy, if harnessed, would be an enormous asset. There's enough
deuterium in the oceans to last millions of years. Fusion plants
could replace fossil fuel plants and greatly reduce pollution.
(You wouldn't need the coal mines or oil/gas wells, there'd be no
ash, no carbon dioxide emissions.) The waste product, tritium, is
low level radioactive waste and far more manageable than wastes
from fission plants.
BY THE WAY, I'M VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO FISSION PLANTS.
Fusion plants could provide the power needed for electric cars, to
get us off gasoline and its pollutants. Otherwise, widespread use
of electric cars will just exacerbate the pollution problem by
necessitating many more fossil fuel power plants.
Fusion plants could desalinate ocean water to provide drinking
water, irrigation water, etc., so we could leave the rivers and
aquifers alone. The waste (salt) is manageable.
I'm saying we can BEST protect the environment, and stimulate the
economy, by pursuing new technology for conservation, renewable
energy sources (like the pilot solar plant being built in Nevada),
and fusion. I'm saying that without better technology and a strong
economy, we'll turn into a third world country and pollution will
be worse, not better.
Go ahead, blast away.
aVr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. I met Clinton once; gave him a white paper; he commented that his
staff was interested in fusion technology.
