The debate over high fuel prices doesn't give one much confidence on how we
will deal with
a. future shortages, as we really begin to run down reserves
b. cutting back to deal with global warming.
As Keith said, some sort of rationing will be necessary. How in a
consumerist democracy will this come about? What politician will commit
political suicide to trade off present pleasure for future gains, except in
times of national emergency? And if its a true national emergency, won't it
indicate that we have left things go to far?
Arthur Cordell
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: September 25, 2000 4:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Price or policy?
Keith Hudson wrote:
> The main problem (at least in the UK) is that no-one has an accurate idea
> of what are the costs of different transport and energy systems.
This is an excuse for continuing to do nothing. What *is* known is that
the costs of the *present* transport and energy systems (fossil fuels)
are MUCH HIGHER than what consumers are paying for fuels today. Adjust
the fuel prices to the actual costs (environmental, public health and
infrastructure damages) *first*, and then talk about the costs of
alternatives.
Anyway, due to the catastrophic effects of CO2 on the global climate,
phasing out fossil fuels would be necessary even *before* the last
reserves are consumed.
In this context it is terribly ironic that Mr. "Earth in the Balance"
(Al Gore) is advocating to deplete the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve
in order to lower oil prices.
Chris
