alt.energy.renewable

Fran wrote:
> On Mar 12, 5:42 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 5:13 pm, bill wrote:
>>>> We do not have the luxury of "wanting" to do things in a "friendly"
>>>> manner, we're gonna die if we don't fix this, starting right now and
>>>> on a truly massive scale
>>> We can be friendly, but firm...

>> Who is this 'we' Fran?
>
> The same 'we' introduced by Bill, adopted for the sake of simplicity
> of argument, and perhaps to prompt him to say something that would
> elucidate whom it encompassed.

You did not answer the question.

>>> They aren't contradictions. Hardly
>>> anyone opposes this stuff, the noise from the global polluters club to
>>> the contrary.

>> You really should quit blaming the boogy man. The habits of Americans
>> have lead to our using 5 times the energy per capita than the rest of
>> the world. And that does not count the East Asian labor and energy
>> consumption that we exploit.
>>
> Passing over the figure -- I'm not sure it's correct but it's not that
> important because Americans (and Australians) emit a lot more GHGs per
> person that East Asians, or ewen South and West Asians -- the real
> point here is that US and Australian society is tructured very much
> around profligate consumption of hitherto relatively cheap energy,
> which is largely so cheap because the downstream costs are counted as
> intangibles and fall relatively randomly on people who aren't that
> wealthy or in a position to complain. The main beneficiaries are the
> people holding the equity in energy assets -- i.e. the global
> polluters' club.

You really should read what you wrote, especially in the context of 'we
exploit' and who is the boogy man....

>> And if some guy comes along and points out that we may damage the
>> world's food supply by burning it in gas tanks, maybe he should not be
>> called names and discounted out of hand.
>
> Well if he's essentially lying or misrepresenting the problem to the
> advantage of the global polluters' club.

Your interpretation. Will you bare the starvation of African countries?
Some idiot on sci.econ says there is no demand destruction. He has no
concept of death. How about you?

> -- and that is the most
> obvious consequence of his position -- then I think that should be
> pointed out. His "thesis" if one may so dignify his ranting, is utter
> bunkum. Nobody is proposing to burn the world's food supply in gas
> tanks.

Look at the world around you. Not your beliefs.

> Some (*not I*) propose to use monocrops like corn or soybeans
> to make biofuels. But if they did that, the quantum of land used would
> be constrained by the increasing profits to be made using land to
> raise food. As I've noted a number of times, right now, the principal
> barriers to the food trade are institutional -- tariffs and so forth.
> That couldn't happen if food were on the verge of becoming scarce.

Do you deny that there are those that starve in this world?

> A
> secondary and longer term threat arises from climate change, as now
> arable lands become less climatically suited, or as inundation of
> coastal lands makes them unfit, or as various plant diseases are moved
> about the world by moving people and small fauna or other crops, or as
> civil conflict breaks out or ... well you get my drift.

Ahh, yes. The adorned will survive. They will save the earth.
>
> As I've also noted, much of the land under tillage is not used to feed
> humans at all, but to raise food for livestock, or to agist it, or to
> produce non-staples like alcohol and convenience foods, or cosmetic
> feedstock.

So, welcome to the real world.

But "calderhome" is not at all interested in these far more
> significant impositions or on the threat to existing arable land
> consequenct upon climate change -- no no. Instead, he prattles on
> about something he calls 'the nuclear hydrogen economy' knowing full
> well that this is simply a figleaf for the business-as-usual case. He
> won't listen to reason. He just keeps spamming the same tired old GPC
> red herrings.

Sorry, but how does your 'business as usual', trump his? That I missed
this 'hydrogen' thing you speak of... But then you lift crop fuels to
the same insanity as hydrogen. No numbers, you know what I mean......

> So IMO, his opinions should be seen in this light and dismissed.

You miss the point. Opinion is irrelevant. Show me your numbers....