--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Infographics are meant to invoke emotion Judy. Jim and I > > > > expressed an emotional reaction to the graphic. We weren't > > > > claiming that this is what it meant, or that this was the > > > > intention. It was just a feeling. > > > > > > > > Your claiming that we have a problem because we felt this way > > > > about the graphic reveals a lot about how you view the world. > > > > Was your emotional reaction the "right" way to feel Judy? > > > > Charming. > > > > > > I loved the graphic and felt an upliftment from natures > > > regenerative capabilities. To me it doesn't imply humans > > > must "exit" for nature to kick in its recovery of the earth, > > > but rather, if we substantially reduced polluting, and our > > > screwed up toxic ways -- en masse, not one at a time, nature > > > can recover. What a great message. > > > > Exactly. > > > > > And the ironic thing, its all doable today with todays technology. > > > Much at negative cost -- that is, the trade-offo of increased > > > energy/pollution fficient technology has a postive return over its > > > life. Save the earth, improve health, increase beauty, and make > > > maoney at the same time. > > > > Which is just what Jim said after declaring the chart > > was "not nice": Let's all be responsible energy > > producers/consumers. > > > Only what I mean by substantially reduced polluting, and our > screwed up toxic ways -- en masse, is quite different in details > than wht i imagine jim envisions.
I don't know what he envisions, actually. The point was that he was complaining about a chart on a site whose goals are the same as his. > I am not suggesting buy a 35 mpg car, use compact fluorescents and > recycle. What I suggest is quite a bit more radical -- yet could > raise living standards and cost little, or nothing. What individuals can do on their own is really only a drop in the bucket, even if we were all doing these things. They're little more than symbolic. They're important in that symbolic sense, though, if they keep our attention on the problem. The danger is that we make our little conservation efforts and figure that's all that *needs* to be done. > It would require a $4/gal or so to gas, and similar btu tax on > electricity and natural gas, etc. Tax revenue from such to provide > incentives / loans for very high efficiency vehicles, home / > building modifications/retrofits, PV and passive solar, no > pollution (GHG) coal and NG generting plants, etc. It all can be > done. Lower energy usage for same energy services will leave energy > bills (total costs) within current ranges even s rates rise. Except > for profligate users. Who can either pay or reform their use/ The taxes would be awfully hard on the working poor, though. And they'd raise prices across the board. We'd have to figure out some way to keep the taxes from taking a big bite out of low incomes. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
