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: <biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com> 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/ > > > 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/
