On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:02 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

 > If you improve the efficiency of space heating by a factor of five, I
> don't think people will turn their thermostats up to 110F.

We don't need to worry about space heating, global warming remember? But if
you suddenly had a simple and cheap invention that doubled the efficiency
of jets airlines would not use half as much fuel, people would fly more and
they'd have more leg room because there would be fewer people per

   > coal mines are dirty and ugly

Alas such is life, not everything can be pretty.

> and release radium into the air.

No they do not. Coal mines release radon into the air but given that radon
is MUCH heavier than air and is in fact one of the heaviest gasses known it
won't go very high or move very fast, and as radon gas has a half life of
only 3.8 days its just a local problem and a minor one at that.

  > That wind and solar and tidal energy generation require government
> subsidy to compete with fossil fuel doesn't make them "moonshine" if there
> are offsetting benefits.

True, some people benefit, some people get rich off those subsidies, the
trouble is they're getting rich off my tax money, just look at the
ridiculous ethanol situation.

> I don't think you speak for most environmentalist.  In fact you don't
> speak for any that I know and I know quite a few.  Do you have a poll or
> survey to support your assertion, or is it a mere invention to discredit
> those who would disagree with you?

No environmentalist would dream of saying he wants people to freeze in the
dark, but I'm much more interested in what they do than what they say.
Energy shortage is a very real problem and the solutions they offer (wind
farms, ocean waves) are wildly impractical; and as if that weren't bad
enough when somebody actually tries to implement one of their looney
schemes they change their mind and decide it would be a bad idea to even
try it out. We can't go back to the old days even if we wanted to, the 7
billion people on this planet can not continue to live without lots of
energy and the power generated from moonbeams is just not sufficient, and
that's why I say their solution is that we freeze in the dark. And I don't
need to discredit environmentalist, they're very good at that themselves.

> Do you equally credit the government disincentives for having more than
> one child?  An instance where China did take the advice of
> environmentalists.

Calling the one child law in China a "disincentive" is a little like the
NASA hack who called the explosion of the Space Shuttle a "energetic
disassembly", unless that is you have powerful friends in the Chinese
government.  Do environmentalists really want to take credit for that?

  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to