See, theres a big difference between crippling, and causing them to not make as big of a profit. (remember, this is the industry that has made new record profits every quarter for the past several years.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Jeff Fink <rev...@ptd.net> wrote: > I'm all for replacing fossil fuel powered machines with equal or superior > nonpolluting alternatives. So far, nothing but nuclear comes close. All I > am saying is, don't shut down, dismantle, or otherwise cripple the fossil > fuel industry until a viable alternative is commercially available. Solar > and wind are obviously not it for numerous reasons already posted on this > forum. > > I really hope LENR will solve the problem, and I hope it is soon. > > Jeff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:59 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: Edmund Storms > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear > > You and many people Jeff, miss an important issue about finding ways > to reduce CO2 emission. Yes it is expensive, but so are all changes > in technology. The expense issue is only a distraction raised by > industries that will be harmed by the new technology. In contrast, the > general population always benefits from such efforts because more jobs > are created and energy becomes cheaper. Unless you are the owner of > an oil, gas or coal company, your self interest requires you to > support any effort to develop any new energy source, but especially > ones that do not generate CO2 regardless of the cost. The cost will > eventually be recovered from the energy generated by the new > technology. Meanwhile, you or your friends would have a job that > otherwise might not be available. Also, when CO2 is removed from the > gas leaving a coal plant, so is mercury and uranium, which is a > benefit to your health. You need to look past the propaganda > generated by the energy industries that would lose profits. > > Ed > > > On Apr 25, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: > >> It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating >> capability than most "experts" give it credit for. Further, it >> seems to me >> that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while >> instead >> of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the >> wrong >> thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. >> Misguided, >> high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened >> world >> economy. >> >> Jeff >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] >> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:40 PM >> To: vortex >> Subject: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear >> >> >> >> http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=30717 >> >> New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat >> paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the >> atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. >> >> OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. >> >> You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush- >> patch?) is >> YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now >> that know >> that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of >> biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 >> - then >> full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission >> controls. >> >> However, that is 'spin' not logic. >> >> But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to >> put a >> totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the >> scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, >> "even >> steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the >> climate." Huh? >> >> Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double >> negative >> makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and >> 'apologetic' as >> it may at first seem: >> >> Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although >> it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more >> efficiently >> under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When >> exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy >> get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, >> while >> leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute >> particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the >> canopy >> get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, >> plants >> absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. >> But the >> ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to >> limit >> CO2 >> >> Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And >> the >> 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost >> exclusively to >> the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global >> dimming' >> due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the >> recent >> past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net >> greenhouse effect. >> >> Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must >> release >> dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it >> highlights >> the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions. >> >> If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not "thinking >> responsibly". >> Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics. >> >> Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives. >> >> The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps >> are >> misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is >> one window >> of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That >> is- aside >> from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that >> we can >> afford to buy those very high-priced solutions. >> >> The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$ >> that we >> want and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon >> credits, >> carbon taxes, etc - and shift that into R&D for LENR, hydrino tech, >> ZPE >> tech, including magnetic energy and even anti-gravity. These fringe- >> facets >> are the ugly stepchild of scince because often they combine more art, >> intuition, trial-and error, and fringe theory than "real' science >> permits. >> But real scicence has failed us. Give the fringe a chance, and my >> intuition >> tells me that success will be forthcoming. >> >> We simply do NOT know enough now to say that CO2 is the real >> culprit, nor >> that reducing it is the complete answer; but everyone agrees that >> new energy >> technology which does not depend on CO2, but promises to be one- >> fourth to >> half the cost per kWhr delivered compared to solar or wind - that is >> the way >> to go with the billions allocated for CO2 reduction (which will not >> help >> anyway). >> >> So why are we waiting? Political inertia. >> >> We still do NOT have a Director of ARPA-E ! nor has any of that >> all-important seed money for risky R&D gone out to people who can >> use it. >> >> IOW -take the ARPA-E philosophy - which is a great idea on paper but >> still >> is not realized, due to foot-dragging and multiply it by all of the >> dollars >> that would be wasted in CO2 sequestration, carbon credits and other >> nonsense. Forget carbon. Carbon is not the enemy, or at least has >> not been >> proved to be anywhere near the problem that the Gore-crew contend it >> to be. >> >> The real problem is bureaucratic inertia. Give the alternative >> energy camp >> the funds, and we will deliver. >> >> I will now cede the soapbox to the Algore Alliance. >> >> Jones >> >> > > >
