From: "Eric Swanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change To: "globalchange" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:16 AM Subject: [Global Change: 2163] Re: The House Energy and Environment Committee
> > "Eric Swanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Oct 8, 4:08 pm, John McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Their statement that the US should reduce GHGs to 60-80 percent by >> 2050 may not soon be enacted into law but it serves a much greater >> purpose in a wholly separate world..the investment world of pension >> and mutual funds. > <...> > Economics activities function only as a subset of the > life support provided by the natural world and I doubt that things > will ever be otherwise. This statement is easily contradicted by a few simple examples. The first that comes to mind is Col. Khadafy's tomatoes growing in the Sahara. Of course this is not "supernatural", but it is not natural in the sense that it is a manufactured artifact of human activity. Technology and organization mediate the relationship between a human population and its environment. > The only remaining > question is who will suffer the most. This is not too mysterious; those who cannot or will not use technology and organization to mediate the effects of environmental change will suffer. The example of French people dying in heat waves due to lack of air-conditioning comes to mind. > I don't see how the consumer actually will get the > message, except thru higher prices. What else is necessary, or is as effective, in changing consumer behavior? >When the available energy supply > is set to decline, as predicted by Peak Oil theorist, rationing-by- > price is not a good idea, as there's no limit to the resulting > inflation as supplies are restricted more each year. You have confused "energy supply" with "oil supply". There is no "Peak Energy" theory. Oil price spikes will signal the development of alternative energy. The stone age did not end for lack of stones, as they say. > Looks like more of the "technology will save us" > approach to the energy problem. Why not? It has worked pretty well so far. -dl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
