Hi Dennis,
At 21:05 15/07/01 -0700, you wrote:
Let me nip right down to the point on which I need to comment:
(KH)
>> . . . wrong inputs. The slightest errors in basic premises can have
exponential
>>effects.
(DP)
>All the more reason not to cause further upsets into the climate equation.
All right, let's discuss Realpolitik. Bush won't accept the Kyoto proposals
because he knows he will meet point-blank resistance from Congress. (This
is known as democracy.) Congress won't accept the need for the Kyoto
proposals because it knows that it will meet point-blank resistance from
the American electorate. (This is also known as democracy.) The American
electorate will refuse to contemplate the need for the Kyoto proposals
while there are still eminent climatologists who say that we have
insufficient evidence of the man-made causes of recent climate changes --
indeed, that the recent climate changes are nothing extraordinary in the
history of the earth. (This is also known as democracy.)
(DP)
>There is simply nothing that can be done that will change the oil
>industry's mind, and by extension, yours.
Oh dear, oh dear! Some of the older members of this List know my
credentials. Let me restate them briefly. In 1969 I founded one of the
first environmental magazines in the world, "Towards Survival", and the
second in England. Among its many other aims, it vociferously opposed the
nuclear power industry, the oil companies and the construction of motorways
in England. Nobel prizewinners wrote for me (for free) as well as other
eminent people. It folded up after three years for financial reasons (due
to high mailing and paper costs incurred by the oil crisis of '72) but it
had circulated in 14 countries and influenced thousands of young people.
(Undoubtedly some of the older members of the IPCC will have read Towards
Survival.) In 1972, as private individuals, Noel Newsome and I brought
about the first piece of environmental legislation for a century in the UK
(and, I believe, in the whole of Europe) -- The Deposit of Poisonous Wastes
Act 1972.
The eccentric views of myself and relatively few others in the 60s and 70s
are now conventional wisdom among the more thoughtful members of the
population. My environmental views have not changed. My sincerity and track
record are the equal of any individual member of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) you may care to name. My ability to be
rational and proportionate in my views is, however, probably greater than
most of its members who are now being carried along to make excessive
statements by peer pressure.
So I would request that you and one or two other FW subscribers do not put
me in the same camp as the oil companies. I would just request that we use
rational arguments, not emotional rhetoric.
-----
Now then, let me shift to a possibly hopeful sign. The cost of solar power
cells is decreasing from year to year. However, one of the big problems
with solar-powered electricity generation is the cost of transmission from
the hot places of the world to the places that use electricity. Very
recently, and for the first time, super-conducting cables are being tested.
Even if this particular test is not successful it is a reasonable bet that
suitable super-conducting materials will be developed in the
not-too-distant future. A totally new energy industry is just around the
corner.
And who will invest in this new industry when it comes along? Without
doubt, the oil companies will be prominent. Some of them are even doing
research into solar power themselves. When they start investing, will they
still be your enemies?
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
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]
________________________________________________________________________
