Yes, of course we can and should improve our liquid fuel consumption.
(The lack of price sensitivity among owners of very large personal
vehicles is a real problem, though it isn't a huge wedge. We already
know how to put pressure on the manufacturers instead of the
consumers.)
Anyway, one or both of CTL and biofuels is going to happen, so choose
your poison.
Were the congressional delegations who said "isn't going to happen"
from the plains states?
At least the side effect emissions of CTL are capturable. At least it
doesn't drive up food prices and eat up ecosystems.
CTL constitutes is an opportunity to defang our biggest enemies. Yes,
it is a matter of buying them off, but it isn't as if they had nothing
to sell. This is an opportunity to make sequestration part of daily
business, which not only breaks even on the liquid fuels front but is
a huge win on the substantially bigger industrial and electrical
energy fronts.
This strikes me as a golden opportunity as much as it is a threat. I
am so tired of the pessimism and confrontational attitude that
prevails today. I don't deny that there is a threat, but it really
disturbs me that you don't want to acknowledge the opportunity.
We can't be rolling over and playing dead with these coal people. The
negotiations have to be serious, and we have to recognize that these
are the sorts of business people who will take what they can get
without too much regard for the common interest. Still. consider
this. The best outcome for the world with CTL is a serious
sequestration program, leading to achievable non-nuclear low emissions
energy supplies for non-mobile sources, meanwhile kicking the support
out from under the denialists. (The reward for the coal folks is that
they win out over the corn people.) I think this scenario is
achievable and is much better than no liquid fuel, no sequestration
infrastructure, and continued bullshit from Singer and Lindzen and
company.
So instead of "No to CTL" say "No CTL without sequestration" and mean
it. How about if we demand two units of CO2 sequestration for each
unit of emissions? Then it is effectively a zero emissions solution.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
