Frank,
Sweden have a higher living standard than US, according to statistics. I am
not suggesting that it is a direct relationship between happiness and
living standard, as it is between happiness and dumbness. Why I say this,
is because the first I will hear when I say this, is something about living
standard and the Swedish suicide rate. The latter is very exact in Sweden,
contrary to catholic countries, where it is a sin to commit suicide. The
high suicide rate is well compensated by the lower accident rate among
Swedes and longer life expectancy. LOL
Had to say the above sooner or later, since it will be brought up, when
something is said about the Swedish living standard.
Then to the base arguments. The Swedes use 1/3 and 1/4 of energy in
housing, compared to US and Canada, after climate compensation. Sweden also
have the same size relationships, when it comes to some countries in
central and southern Europe.
The Swedes and Europeans in general, uses around 50% of the fuel in
transportation per distance, compared to US and Canada. This without a
general use of hybrids or hydrogen -:), but with 30 to 50% of diesel
vehicles, compared with US with a couple of percent. Despite the higher use
of diesel vehicles, the pollution levels per distance is lower in Europe
than US.
It is no necessary relationship between living standard and energy use, but
it is a clear relationship between dirtiness and energy efficiency. It is
amazing that we need a Kyoto agreement to be clean, neat and efficient, but
it is even more amazing that someone do not want to subscribe to it.
Hakan
At 12:44 AM 7/6/2005, you wrote:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C581B3.1A7EE376"
Before you throw up... Can you tell us the solution?
Bio-fuel, wind, and solar are great starts on energy, but all combined are
still a tiny drop in the bucket up against fossil fuels.
If the oil stops - we starve.
Ties to middle east oil are likely to drag us into WWIII (consult your
Bible & nightly news for details).
Kyoto as it stands is nothing but a money and political power grab, I
wouldn't support it either (and yes I have read it).
Hydrogen/fuel cell cars are the low hanging fruit here, we can
possibly cut auto fuel usage by 30%-40% through efficiency.
I remember the fuel crisis of the 70's that resulted minor long term changes.
Seams to me we do need a short term and long term policy...
Short term, get as far away from the evils as possible
(environmental, political, and economic).
Long term, exploit every energy source possible.
I you have any viable real world solutions lets hear it.
O-yes, I live in Kansas where people are fighting against wind farms (we
are a high wind state) because it disrupts their view of the country side.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Redler
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 4:50 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bush wants to shift global warming debate
OK, I've been a little preoccupied lately and haven't been able to
contributions to recent discussions. However, one of Kieth's recent posts
caught my attention.
Please allow me to vent.
...I'm quoting parts of Kieth's post in reverse order.
"My hope is -- and I think the hope of Tony Blair is -- to move
beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that
will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away
from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have
the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on
foreign sources of oil," Bush said.
"Bush spoke of his administration's investment of $20 billion (16.55
billion euros) in developing hydrogen-powered vehicles, zero-emission
power stations and other technology."
Bush's position shifts like the tide -- like a tide resulting from global
warming and which might swallow Bangladesh.
He starts out with "...away from fossil fuels...", then differentiates
who's fossil fuels with "...less dependence on foreign sources of oil".
Finally, (In an earlier statement) he spoke of his administrations $20
billion investment in hydrogen powered vehicles, demonstrating his
steadfast commitment to oil interests.
He wants to project concern toward (only the most uneducated)
environmentalists with a technology that addresses the storage of energy
and not sustainable resources for conversion. At the same time, he chooses
a cause which the oil industry can actively participate. Finally, a low
emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions is an invitation for some companies
to manufacture "green" products with no regard to the manufacturing
processes and how it contributes to global warming -- thus, defeating the
purpose.
I think I need to throw up now.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
