--- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:45:38 -0700 (PDT) > From: Marlon Menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Unfortunately, the preponderance of science, > regulation and money is betting against Mario's > outmoded beliefs. I think president Bush forgot to > send Mario a personal memo that he too now accepts > global warming as fact. > > > > > Mario responds:
> Regulation perhaps, but preponderance of science? > Hardly. ---- Not just science and regulation, but more importantly, money that is lining up against global warming. In a free market enconomy, this is what really matters in the end. It is true that there will continue to be some global warming deniers, just as there continues to be a mass of people who deny the holocaust, or those who claim that 9/11 was a jewish conspiracy! It is a free world afterall, and you and others are free to expouse such beliefs. > You would have learned that I have never denied the > fact of global warming as you falsely allege, but, > unlike you, I am aware of the serious debate among > CLIMATE scientists about the causes and extent of > future global warming and whether it is likely to be > catastrophic or beneficial. ---> Really? If so, can you explain why you were actually claiming that there was global cooling taking place. Please refer to your own post below: Title"Some more evidence of global cooling", http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GoenchimXapotam/message/11243 > While India and China have signed the Kyoto > Protocols > they are both exempted from its requirements as are > all less developed countries. What good are their > pledges when most of the European countries have > been > unable to meet their own requirements so far. If > they > are serious, why don't they pass an amendment and > include them formally. And, if you think India and > China are far behind in pollution levels, you have > no > idea what is going on in either country. ---> I agree that many of the European signitories have not been able to maintain their pledges so far. Koyoto as it stands is quite toothless thanks to the US adminstration's policy of fighting enforcable anti-carbon legislation. I am quite well aware of the growth of carbon emissions in China and India. China for example, added around 100,000MW of additional electricity generation last year - equal to England's total installed capacity, with much of this from carbon belching coal powered plants. However, on a per capita basis, China is still a third that of the US in carbon emissions. Again, if the EU and the US were to reach a common understanding on carbon emissions, they could easily force the likes of India and China to adopt more stringent carbon regulations and make it part of the regulatory trade agreements. Basically, if a nation's carbon index is deemed to be too high, it gets hit with penalties. > A target of 20% from clean energy in India amounts > to > a hill of beans by 2020 even if they can achieve > this > after rejecting the US offer to help them build more > nuclear generated power plants. --- Since when did nuclear energy become "clean" energy? The rejection of the deal with the US is part a reflection on how un-popular the US administration has become even in "friendly" India, but it is a loss for both nations - America's credibility and prestige and India's economy. In fact, it looks like India is actually more willing to deal with Iran (over US objections of course) for its energy needs! A very stupid move imo. 20% of total energy from renewables is significant for any nation. Solar and wind for example, account for much less than 1% of the world's needs at the moment. Wind is close to be being cost competitive to traditional fossil fuels (around a 20% premium) at current energy prices. Ditto for thermal solar. PV is approximately still 3x more than conventional energy, but its costs have been dropping by around 50% (per unit of energy) per decade, though it is hoped that with the recent levels of investment/research, people are hoping for parity in less than 10 years. When this happens, we could potentially see a dramatic shift in the world's energy equation. Marlon
