Thanks Todd, but a simple no would suffice. I'm not trying to be offensive or to mess with anyones belief systems and I do consider that a lot of what we accept about man's effect on the environment is just that, an act of faith; no better or worse than the blind acceptance that we have no detrimental effects or that God will protect his creation. I'm just not too sure that we can slow the momentum or direction of climate change, even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow and that means that a whole lot of effort needs to go into coping with change. The key to sustainability is still human population statis. Though I don't accept it as proven, I have seen figures that suggest that the way to limit population growth is by developing the economy of a target population to ensure social security. Australia's natural population growth rate is negative for example, fewer than 75% were born here. I'm not too sure that that excuses the Washington response to greenhouse mitigation. Actually I do believe that Australia would take all of the Islanders rather than see them drown. Our political system is quite sensitive to public opinion and, through our public service even more sensitive to the opinions of ethicists. At times it can seem to be quite democratic that way. Well meant disinformation and exageration has a habit of backfiring in this system and I actively discourage it. Many Australians have little sympathy for illegal immigrants who have paid their way here and then expect to be treated as refugees. We do accept genuine refugees but people who have bypassed less attractive countries to get here are not seen as genuine refugees. Australia is the nearest continental land mass for the Pacific Islanders to whom I refer. In case anyone is interested, it's an odd combination of the Green and redneck vote that keep our immigration as low as it is. To me the policy sucks, to get enough points to qualify you need to have either enough money or education to be part of the elite in your country of origin. We are actively importing class preducices that were absent a generation ago, still, there is no other racial or religious discrimination and we do take some tradespeople and a few refugees. Bear in mind that our land area is similar to the US ( I forget the exact area)and our population is only 20 million, the multicultural thing is hard to miss.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How 'bout if we started at the back end of your horse and work > forward? > > You state at the end of your message that the "information" that > you are specifically looking for is that which "doesn't ... count > the cost" or "doesn't assume that all change is bad." > > First, why would you want literature that doesn't take into > consideration all aspects...literature that is selective and > discriminating? It's rather difficult to understand anything if > it's only being looked at from one or a selective few angles, and > through a prism lense at that. > > Second, how about altering your words to "doesn't assume that > change is always bad." Perhaps a wee technicality, but some > changes are entirely bad, some changes are only partially > negative and some changes are entirely for the better. The real > questions lay in "how does a singular initial change affect each > and every segment of global population, either through 1st, 2nd, > 3rd, 4th or later generation consequences." What may be good for > a crop or species in one bioregion may be absolutely devastating > in another. And what may appear to be of initial benefit one year > may prove with each consecutive year to yield increasingly > detrimental consequences. > > Third, as you seem to have a grasp on the concept of > sustainability, how is it so difficult to transpose similar logic > patterns over the consequences of global warming? It shouldn't be > too terribly difficult to grasp that puffins and polar bears > aren't designed for, won't be able to adapt to or won't be able > to evolve quickly enough to cope with the new environments being > imposed upon them. Then multiply that inability by thousands, > tens of thousands and millions of species of flora and fauna. > > But then, your questions were primarily anthropocentric...as if > inhumankind is independant of the world that surrounds them. Kind > of like a mechanic that comes up with a half dozen spare parts > after the last valve cover has been put on...probably didn't need > those parts anyway, eh? > > But strictly from the anthropocentric focal point, just because > your stilt house is high and dry doesn't mean that everyone else > can afford the stilts or afford to move should they be washed > out. Not all islanders are "rich." Not all Ausies are warm and > welcome hearted, saying "It's okay. Come pitch your tent in my > back yard. Bring your family and your goats until the next ice > age cometh." Hell, in this country people not only won't give > back trible land whose title has been legally proven in the > judicial system, they keep trying to pinch the poorest of the > poor and quarantine them into domiciles that look like > refrigerator boxes (some of which are). > > What makes you think that people in any hemisphere are going to > welcome dislocated persons with open arms...at least not unless > they have $20,000 credit account with VISA or MasterCard. But > then they'll only be welcome until the credit runs out and > doubtful if they would be welcome to marry anyone's sister. > > Oh...but it's not so bad. Some of us will still be able to > continue with 50 gallon spritz baths twice daily. Should it > really bother me if entire populations can't find enough water to > boil a potato, or can't find a potato... period? Is it really so > bad that some people will lose their livlihoods and their lives > while others will make out quite well? > > Ever ask yourself what they call 6 inches of rainfall in 4 hours > in comparison to 6 inches of rainfall in 4 days or 4 weeks? One > is called desert and/or flood, the other is more habitable and > probably arable. > > And finally...as if there's really not volumes more to > express...even though I jumped the gun by implying the geological > time frames of evolution somewhere in "the middle of the horse," > rather than the front, you could give some thought about how > under a natural regimen of change species have the opportunity to > adapt and migrate... even those tortoise like giants called > Trees. > > No..., proportional to geological time, global warming as a > result of human contribution is more akin to a moon sized meteor > hitting the earth, forcing nearly overnite extinction and > borderline survival for many species. There is certainly no > justification for creating such havoc, even though we can and > are. And there is certainly no justification for accepting such > havoc simply because we can "adapt." > > Ever asked yourself how it is that a world dies? Not much > different than any animal...bit by bit and cell by cell it ceases > to function, until the total balance can no longer support its > own existance. > > Todd Swearingen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: gjkimlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:51 AM > Subject: [biofuels-biz] Re: Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies > > > > I know that I can be a little thick but can some one help me to > get > > this problem with climate change. Perhaps the rapidity and > direction > > of climate change has been affected by human intervention but > so > > what? Nothing in nature is constant and natural systems must > have > > evolved to cope with change. Man is probably the most adaptable > of > > animals. With more energy in the system weather events will be > more > > extreme but wouldn't that mean shorter droughts as well? OK > moving a > > desert is going to alter realestate prices but does that mean > that > > world wide productivity will be reduced? Storm surges will > probably > > make some Islands uninhabitable but there is plenty of room in > > Australia for those near us and by the looks of things those > > Islanders with money have already come here, it's just a matter > of > > taking the rest. I'm not in favour of the things that have > caused > > global warming, nonrenewable resources should not be wasted but > is > > this real or just a supporting argument for sustainability? > > The literature on this is so vast I can't read it all so has > anyone > > come across the stuff I need, something that doesn't simply > assume > > that change is bad or count the cost of moving uphill in $US. > > Thanks from Harry. > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13450 > > > AlterNet -- > > > Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies > > > Michel Gelobter, AlterNet > > > June 24, 2002 > > > > > > The controversy over the recent release of the 2002 Climate > Action > > > Report by the Environmental Protection Agency is just the > latest in > > a > > > series of environmental controversies to hit the Bush > > Administration. > > > > > > Before people were left to try solving the riddle of > President > > Bush's > > > actual climate change position, they witnessed a series of > > > energy-related scandals that dogged Washington. Whether it > was > > Enron, > > > the California energy crisis, or the deliberations into the > > > Bush-Cheney Energy Plan, troubling signals emanate from the > White > > > House with disturbing frequency. > > > > > > Take, for example, the release of documents tying Energy > Secretary > > > Spencer Abraham to meetings with donors, whose campaign > > contributions > > > to both parties since 1999 topped $29 million. The payoff > from > > those > > > meetings was almost a thousandfold: legislation embodying $27 > > billion > > > in subsidies. > > > > > > Believe it or not, this rich harvest is dwarfed by a decision > the > > > Bush Administration has already implemented: the U.S. > withdrawal > > from > > > the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Had the U.S. respected > our > > > commitment to action on this critical issue, recent studies, > > > including our own, have shown that the net cost to American > fossil > > > fuel industries could have been more than $45 billion a year. > By > > > contrast, estimates of the benefits of good climate policy to > the > > > economy as a whole range as high as $120 billion a year by > 2020. > > > While our economy took the hit, the energy industry walked > away > > from > > > the President's policy with its biggest payday ever. > > > > > > So while the fossil fuel industry cashes in on our climate > > reversal, > > > who pays? First, the vast majority of American businesses. If > the > > > U.S. adopted a policy to internalize the climate-related > costs of > > > energy use, it would spawn a vast "double dividend." > Redirected > > > investments would spur employment and send new investments > where > > they > > > belong, in companies fueled by workers and innovation instead > of > > > dependence on foreign oil. > > > > > > Furthermore, the reversal of American climate policy devalues > other > > > industry groups relative to fossil fuel. Because fossil fuel > use is > > > subsidized by bad climate policy, we use more of it than we > should. > > > Energy industries artificially appear to be better > investments than > > > they really are and attract capital investment that could be > used > > > more productively in the rest of the economy. > > > > > > A second victim of the energy industry's climate subsidy is > our > > > national security. Adopting the Kyoto Protocol could reduce > by 2020 > > > our dependence on oil by over 25%. There may not be a linear > > > relationship between this number and the geo-political risks > > created > > > by our dependence on oil-producing states, but we sorely need > the > > > flexibility that independence would allow. > > > > > > Because global warming is, after all, global, its effects > threaten > > > our security in the long-run as well. The U.S., which > represents 4% > > > of the world population, emits 25% of the carbon dioxide from > > fossil > > > fuel, and we are historically responsible for over 35% of > > greenhouse > > > gasses presently trapped in the atmosphere. As the impacts of > our > > > emissions become more clear with time, our reputation may > grow from > > > pariah on climate policy to responsible party for the natural > > > disasters that climate change will entrain. Barring rapid > action on > > > our part, events like the submersion of 57% of Bangladesh in > 1998 > > or > > > last month's rapid breakup of Antarctic ice may increasingly > be > > > linked to American energy policy, whether or not these events > are > > > directly connected to climate change. > > > > > > Global warming is happening right here, right now, and there > is no > > > shortage of impacts on our own people. The elderly trapped in > > > unprecedented urban heat waves, America's arctic populations > facing > > > dwindling fish catches, and farmers in the South and > Southwest > > > dependent on an increasingly volatile climate are all paying > the > > > price of our delay and inaction. All told, the United Nations > > > Environment Program calculates the worldwide cost of inaction > at > > $300 > > > billion per year, as coastal property disappears, buildings > are > > > damaged, and species' habitats are irrevocably altered. These > are > > > costs we will now pass on to our children, our children's > children, > > > and the world for generations to come. The President's > reversal on > > > climate is the gift to the fossil fuel industry that keeps on > > taking > > > from the rest of us. > > > > > > It is a testament to our democracy that, despite their > millions in > > > contributions, the energy industry still faces significant > legal > > and > > > political hurdles to getting their way on many other fronts. > With > > its > > > inaction on climate change the Bush administration has scored > a > > > windfall for an industry with enormous clout. Unfortunately, > it has > > > also laid the groundwork for a human and environmental > tragedy of > > > unprecedented proportion. > > > > > > Michel Gelobter is the Executive Director of Redefining > Progress, > > an > > > Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit that works to ensure a more > > > sustainable and socially equitable world. > > > > > > Biofuels at Journey to Forever > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel at WebConX > > http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm > > List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: > > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Will You Find True Love? Will You Meet the One? Free Love Reading by phone! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ztNCyD/zDLEAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
