[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Global Warming Again!
Paul, some your thoughts are outright frightening to me. Please stop and
notice the extent to which your comments are thoroughly infiltrated with govt
regulatory features. And then you want more govt intervention in order to
control the untoward profits of energy, building, and transportation companies
and, by the way, to obviously save the planet. And you would use the power to
tax as the enforcer of your ideas of social engineering. I won't attempt any
ultimate solutions here, but it is not difficult to recognize obvious
regulatory excesses which are rampant within the executive and judicial
branches of government. Do you really desire that much relief from your own
responsibility and freedom to make daily choices in your life - do you
sincerely believe that government appointees do it that much better for you? I
might be duped into various unwise choices, but I want the opportunity to be
duped or not rather than giving that power to government. Moreover, please
note the term: unwise. Unwise is not a question of scientific fact; it is a
value judgment requiring at least consideration of for whom and for what. I
hope you might see the puny efforts of mankind in a better perspective
compared, for example, with the simple results of an occasional full-blown
volcano here and there. We often presume awesome capabilities for ourselves.
Best wishes,
Maury Siskel maury@webtexas.com
-----------------------
Preserve your right to arm bears.
================================
Paul William Shafer wrote:
> I agree with your "degree per decade" information from
> what I have read. Can you imagine what it might be if
> all of the nuclear power plants were replaced by coal
> or natural gas fired plants? That is exactly what
> many utilities and NG suppliers are hoping for by 2025
> since there is much less regulatory hassle in
> construction and operation of NG fired inefficient
> "jet engine-type" mini-turbine farms. The NG suppliers
> want to burn NG during the summer for AC, rather than
> store it for winter heating, since they realize much
> greater profits.
>
> In addition, even though the federal government has a
> 20 mpg requirement for light trucks and SUVs, you and
> I both know that large V-8 powered SUVs only get 6-10
> mpg while "parked" on expressways with one or two
> people in them every day on the comutes in and out of
> large metro areas. The oil companies and car companies
> obviously love these vehicles and have duped people
> into believing they are safer. The oil companies and
> car companies make most of their profits from these
> vehicles and not from small fuel efficient vehicles.
> What is the contribution to Global Warming from these
> vehicles concentrated on "moving parking lots" in big
> cities?
>
> How about 5000+ sq. ft. new homes which have one or
> two people in them in terms of NG and electricity
> usage? Obviously, home builders and banks do not want
> modern 2500 sq. ft. homes like the ones built in the
> 1960s since they realize smaller profit margins.
>
> If the V-8/V-10 powered SUVs and light trucks were
> luxury taxed at 10-15% of list price, if a $4000 tax
> credit were given to home owners to reduce energy
> usage, if the price of a gallon of gasoline reached
> $3.50 per gallon by what ever means, if regulatory
> controls on nuclear power were reduced etc. etc.
> perhaps we help could curb "Global Warming." These
> things do not appear likely within the next twenty
> years.
>
> "Bigger and more inefficient is better in a throw-away
> society." That is what keeps the profits coming. I
> believe it is more of a macro-economic issue than a
> political one.
>
> Just some comments.
>
> Paul Shafer
> --- Michael McNaughton <mcnaught@LANL.GOV> wrote:
> > At 04:11 PM 7/18/01 -0700, Jerry Cohen wrote:
> > >beginning some 4,000 years ago and running until
> > the birth of Christ,
> > >temperatures averaged between 1.5 and 3 degrees
> > Celsius higher than they
> > >do today.
> >
> > An important detail that has been omitted is: the
> > rate of change. One
> > degree change per thousand years has been observed
> > before. The present data
> > tentatively indicate about a degree per decade,
> > which is about 2 orders of
> > magnitude larger than before.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > Mike McNaughton
> > Los Alamos National Lab.
> > email: mcnaught@LANL.gov or mcnaughton@LANL.gov
> > phone: (505)667-6130
> >
> >
> ************************************************************************
> > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing
> > list. To unsubscribe,
> > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put
> > the text "unsubscribe
> > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> > with no subject line.
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.