At 00:36 15/07/01 +0200, Christoph Reuss wrote: >Keith Hudson wrote: >> At 09:53 14/07/01 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >I think this is the best counter to Bush's irremediably self-interested know >> >nothing position on Global Warming. etc, etc, I have nothing new to say on this. In my last few messages to FW I have explained my position as carefully and concisely as I can, and I should only be repeating myself. Keith Hudson >> > >> >It is not that we don't know enough therefore we should do nothing thus >> >allowing things to change, rather it is that we don't know enough therefore >> >we should not be allowing potentially drastic changes to occur in what we >> >don't know enough about. >> >> This entirely misses the point. >> >> If the present climate change is natural then there's absolutely nothing >> that can be done about it. Global warming could get far worse or it could >> swing the other way. (There's strong evidence, for example, that the next >> Ice Age could start any decade soon.) > >This entirely misses the point. > >The most harmful effect of CO2 is de-stabilization of the climate, leading >to increased frequency and amplitude of weather _extremes_, which are >destructive independent of an "Ice Age" backdrop (not just "a litte warmth"). >There's absolutely a lot that can be done against man-made GHG emissions. > > >> If the present changes are man-made (against an otherwise stable backdrop), >> then the Kyoto proposals would come nowhere near correcting the CO2 cause. >> Nowhere near. Far more drastic action would be required > >We gotta start somewhere... > > >> that would have to >> totally replace the fossil-fuel derived productive processes of the whole >> world. It would be akin to a new type of Dark Ages. > >Balderdash! A reduction by 2/3 would achieve very much. If the USA would >reduce its CO2 emissions by 71.5% (i.e. more than by 2/3), it would reach >the per-capita emissions level of Switzerland. Keith, do you want to >suggest that Switzerland looks like the Dark Ages ? > >Btw, alternative energy sources could easily provide enough energy to >replace all fossil-fuels. E.g. solar-powered vehicles are already >well-advanced (if you think that E-vehicles are lame, have a look at >www.acpropulsion.com to see how the E-car outruns a fossil-fuel Porsche). >It's not a question of feasibility but of good will (which the oilmen in >the WhiteHouse lack). > >Chris > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
