[FoRK] "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

Stephen D. Williams sdw
Fri Jul 8 12:23:43 PDT 2005


Justin Mason wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>Stephen D. Williams writes:
>  
>
>>Actually, I did point out that it is always a good idea to be efficient 
>>(which is conservation).  Of course I favor a dual approach.  It sounds 
>>like many of the Green-leaning folk don't expect any technical advances, 
>>which is shortsighted.
>>    
>>
>
>boo for those "many folks".  http://www.worldchanging.com/
>  
>
Cool site.  Currently on the front page of that site are articles on 
high tech solutions for growing meat for consumption in a lab dish, a 
portable EVD0/Wifi/Solar backpack hotspot, and home wind/electricity 
generators.
That is far more of a dual conserve/technology approach (what I was 
advocating) rather than those "many folks".
I suppose that was your point, although it wasn't clear to me.

>  
>
>>Where the tough decisions come in is in determining the cost/benefit 
>>decision points.  There are far too many people making assumptions, 
>>insisting on action or inaction, wanting to act too early or too late.  
>>We need more experiments, investigation, modeling, etc.
>>    
>>
>
>  The pollster Frank Luntz prepared a strategy memo for Republican members
>  of Congress, coaching them on how to deal with a variety of
>  environmental issues. .... Under the heading 'Winning the Global Warming
>  Debate,' Luntz wrote, 'The scientific debate is closing (against us) but
>  not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the
>  science.' He warned, 'Voters believe that there is no consensus about
>  global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to
>  believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global
>  warming will change accordingly.'
>
>( http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050509fa_fact3 )
>  
>
I do not question global warming or the probable causes, nor would I 
want to fool the public about it.
I am just not worried about losing a little coastline, shifting climates 
around, or changing the weather.  These things will happen to some 
extent anyway and they are not the end of the world.  Additionally, I'm 
more interested in how to counteract the effects.  I agree with many 
approaches: I think we should be much more stringent about polluting 
vehicles (trucks in the US and old diesels in Europe) for instance.  We 
should invest more directly in trying various alternative energy sources 
(nuclear, wind -> hydrogen, etc.) rather than trying some lame indirect 
route like making existing energy more expensive for consumers.  I 
really fail to see how that encourages energy companies to spend on 
other energy types.

sdw

>- --j.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Exmh CVS
>
>iD8DBQFCzrXRMJF5cimLx9ARAnozAJ9jbDsMppWaTqPn6C7NTKtoWQxRmgCeOQWJ
>MHD1xk5E31vR21kscgwZuqA=
>=p5y6
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  
>


-- 
swilliams at hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw at lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw



More information about the FoRK mailing list