I'm starting this topic lest the series of posts I've made on the subject today get buried by incessant trolling.....
I did some 'back of the envelope' calculations while listening to the hockey game on this rainy afternoon (How about Mike Lange and Phil Borque for a Unity08 ticket?).
Assuming a total mass of the Earth's atmosphere of 3*10^19 Kg, a specific heat of 1000 Joules/ kg-deg(c) and using Erasmussimo's figure of total energy output (1.7 * 10**12 watts/yr), it can be shown that if only 10% of the energy output goes into heating the atmosphere, the temperature will rise 1 degree C in 100 years
Simple Thermodynamics.
The amount of heat required to effect a one degree temperature change is equal to the mass times the specific heat. In this instance 3 *10^22 Joules
A watt is joule /sec, thus it requires 6.7 *10^14 Watts to effect a degree C temperature change in a year
Naturally, some of it will be dissipated into space, but until 100 years ago, the Earth didn't have to dissipate it to maintain an equilibrium (unlike CO2, which the Earth's biosphere have been dealing with for billions of years)
The waste heat energy generated by human energy production HAS to go somewhere (Conservation of Energy). My hypothesis is not all of it escapes into space, but some portion goes into heating the atmosphere. Rising CO2 levels only worsen the problem
If your want to continue your polemics, you can post it here...
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
So why don't you respond to my latest comment, in which I explained the fundamentals of global warming physics and explained why your back of the envelope calculation is completely wrong. Do you understand that explanation?
Also, have you solved your homework problem I gave you?
Are you talking about this post?
http://unity08.com/node/61#comment-15676
As I said many times in that topic, it has NOTHING TO DO with what I'm discussing. I fully understand why CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas, why some of the sun's energy is reflected back into space, and some gets trapped. That is NOT the point.
The point that I make as the well as the Weather Channel(but what do they know, they only make their living out of studying the atmosphere) is that Humans are repossible for rising gloabl tempertures, not necessarily CO2 levels.
If you hadn't been such a zealous polemicist, you'd realize that if what we are BOTH saying is true, global warming will be an even WORSE future problem, because the energy waste heat will be trapped CO2 JUST LIKE THE SUN'S RADIANT ENERGY.
But you seemed more concerned with showing off your ability to google and cut and paste (not that you gave credit to site you cut and pasted from)
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
OK, so you seem to have abandoned your absurd claims about radio waves being responsible for global warming. That's a good first step. I take it that you are not able to solve the little homework problem I gave you -- I really didn't expect that you could.
You also seem to have conceded the main point, that CO2 is the primary anthropogenic factor in global warming, but please correct me if I misunderstand your position.
Lastly, I have to share something humorous about your suggestion that I have been merely cutting and pasting from other places on the web. As it happens, I've been working most of the day on another problem, a very difficult one, and when I need to take a breather, do something light, I come over here to see what new nonsense you've posted. The real work I've been doing is preliminary analysis of correction factors for analysis of digitized video data of an astronomical phenomenon -- which I won't name because I don't want to identify myself (you never know what kind of nasty vengeful people are out there on the Internet). I'm exploring two areas just today: spatial correction factors and luminance corrections based on spectral distributions. The image intensifiers we used have heightened sensitivity at the red end of the spectrum, and so calibrations against background stars are difficult -- we cannot directly compare our data to the standard U, B, or V magnitudes readily available in all the star catalogs. So I'm compiling scatter diagrams of luminance readings against magnitudes and B-V values, trying to find a reliable relationship between V-magnitude, B-V value, and luminance reading. It's proving to be very difficult because there's a lot of scatter in the data. I may have to compile data from thousands of stars to get clear results -- a prospect I am not relishing.
Fortunately, the spatial distortion in the field is a much easier problem. I'm getting a beautiful clean distribution out to about 250 pixels, showing a very slight ramping up (only about 1 pixel in total size), but beyond 250 pixels the data start scattering and the distortion climbs up -- although even then it's still only about 4 pixels. I'm just now looking into the possibility that my star-tracing algorithm might be a contributing factor.
So here I am doing this hairy astrophysics work and here you are calling me a moron who has to find his science on Google. What would people think? ;-)
Oh, and if you'd like me to explain other topics in physics or astronomy, I'll be happy to teach you -- so long as you stop calling me a moron. I'm also somewhat knowledgeable about nuclear power plant design, digital electronics, computer systems design, software engineering, evolutionary psychology, military history, general history, some linguistics, and of course, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. And I don't need to look up any of it on the web -- most of my own sources are much better than anything you can find on the web.
Have a nice day, Kris.
The premise before both of you is how to identify and elect a president who will not only understand, but be sympathetic to the issue of global warming and so being sympathetic and understanding will work toward at least resolving the human portion of the equation. Find a means to that end and we'll all be duly impressed with the mental masturbation that has gone on this past 12 hours.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
-
Have a good night
****
I would like to get a sense of how many of our States Congressional Districts have ‘08 Delegates. Please email your: unity08 name, State & District
Please format as shown: your08name-NY04
Thank you, Stu from CT02 unity08_ct02@yahoo.com
Let's start at this post --> http://unity08.com/node/766
Let's assume that the basic argument is correct which is:
Or let's posit that the post is complete and utter fantasy, but there exists an alternate approach that meets the following goals:
And assuming that the question "Exactly what is this alternate approach?" is answered herein and forthwith, the challenge before this group is to build an economic, scientific and political response to these agreed-upon truisms and to impress upon potential candidates for leadership of this group that this response is sound and saleable to the electorate.
It is time to move beyond theory and sarcasm and cynicism and blather; toward options and solutions and means and actions. Unity08 succeeds on the quality of it's thought and the energy behind it's actions.
Input? Response?
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
We must engage the economists, scientists and capitalists amonst us or around us who will be necessary get one.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
John, I'm not confident that there exists a single solution to a problem as broad as CO2 emissions, or even a primary solution. I would prioritize our options as follows:
1. Nuclear power: Zero carbon emissions.
2. Cleaner coal technology: much bigger than nuclear, but will never get close to zero carbon emissions.
3. Conservation strategies, of which there are many:
florescent lights replacing incandescent lights
hybrid automobiles
all-electric automobiles
smaller automobiles
lifestyle changes to reduce total driving
broader use of setback thermostats
reduced use of HVAC
greater reliance on telecommunications instead of travel
4. Solar water heating
5. Solar home heating
6. Wind power
7. Solar photovoltaic
8. Increased reforestation
In other words, I don't see any silver bullets; we're going to have to nibble this problem to death.
Lastly, your comment about my engaging in "mental masturbation" was a cheap shot. C'mon, I'm educating this guy. I'm also demonstrating to everybody else how to deal with a troll. You don't get mad, you don't engage in nastiness, you courteously pick, pick, pick him to pieces. It takes patience and careful use of the language. Most of the time it's not worth the effort, but occasionally I like to practice my skills, and in this case I sense that this political community could be important, but if it's hijacked by trolls, it will be ruined. We need to keep this place clean and friendly if we hope to see it grow. Dealing with people like Mr. KrisW is a necessary (albeit unpleasant) part of that task. And don't give up on him -- he might just come around.
Erasmussimo, Maybe you are new to unity08, I am not. There have been a series of folks who have posted excessively and, to my and others viewpoints, irrationally and aggressively. It seems that as one leaves, another comes. I don't actually feel that there is a conspiracy, but its just the way things are.
There has been no effort from Unity08 to address this problem, therefore it seems they condone it. Indeed they took off the place on the home page where pleadings were made to address this problem.
Yes, I am fairly new to Unity08. I usually embrace the old rule that the best way to treat trolls is to ignore them, but in this case I keep getting just enough indication that there's hope. So I'm continuing my efforts with KrisW, although I know that at some point I'll have to give up and fall back on standard practice.
Eras -- The problem has a serial nature, one after the other irrational members flooding the site with junk. The lesson for me is that it hasn't been dealt with by the site owners, not any particular problem with the individuals involved. Indeed, all the individuals have at one time or another had salient points.
The issue to me is one of how Unity08 deals with it, and so far that has been to ignore the problem. There were a lot of interesting posters to start with here, then as membership increased the chances for hijacking by singleminded folks increased.
My best thought on a solution was a daily posting limit, perhaps user specific, but it doesn't need to be, it could be a general site wide posting limit.
First of all, the list you provide is certainly a start. However, from a policy perspective, there are problems:
The question put before you, and the group in general was not "do alternatives exist?" but "which alternatives provide which benefits within a holistic view of economic, energy and foreign policy objectives?" The answer to this question is knowable and saleable to a public looking for leadership.
The basic (public proclamation of the) premise of Unity08 is to lead where our current politicians will not. Putting your impressive energy and intellect to work on this problem, along with the energy of economists, scientists, public policy wonks and capitalists is the "open source" approach to politics and leadership this country so sorely needs.
-----
To your comments about "mental masturbation", yes it was a cheap shot and intended to be so. There are plenty of places for bright people to post ideas and plenty more for "trolls" to rant incoherently. This should be neither of those. Furthermore, while you may have the intellectual strength, the time, the stomach and the stamina to go toe-to-toe with some of the more challenging participants here, there are many who would come to Unity08 who lack one or all of these characteristics. It is those people; drawn to the idea and promise of Unity08 but turned away by the noise; that we must protect and encourage here. If doing so means being a bit brash on occasion, then I am guilty as charged.
I agree that KrisW offers some interesting assets to this group; not the least of which are his energy nor his contrarian approach to most things (if properly augmented with real arguments and offered in a spirit of cooperation and not condemnation).
Finally, and to be clear, I apologize for tweaking you beyond what would be considered fair. I appreciate the insights you've brought me (and this group) and, after tracking down similarly named posters on other sites, I have been keen to read and learn more, as long as reading and learning more furthers the aims Unity08 contends it has.
Finally, bringing 1 person around to your way of thinking about a problem is not the same as bringing around 40 million needed to win an election or 300 million needed to move the future. I am advocating that we move away from contemplation and argument and on toward collaboration and results. You appear to be someone who can help us in that regard. I'm looking forward to seeing how this progresses.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
Thanks, John, for your sensible comments on the whole troll issue. Yes, I have been wasting too much energy trying to bring Kris around, and I must confess that some of it was personal pride. So let's roll up our sleeves and get down to some serious business...
You're absolutely right that the political issues regarding nuclear power constitute major obstacles to its deployment. I am not so stubborn as to insist that we simply cram this technology down people's throats because they're too dumb to understand it. We have to respect the political realities. I think we can use some leadership and start the process of educating the public about the technical realities of nuclear power. We need politicians who can declare that nuclear power needs a second look, a renewed examination of its strengths and weaknesses. We need a robust, informed public debate. I don't expect that we'll make rapid progress -- it will take decades to overcome public fear. But we have 50 years of operating experience with this technology and an excellent safety record. We need to declare these facts publicly.
I'm not as optimistic about coal technology as you are. I remember back in the 70s when fluidized bed technology was the silver bullet. It turned out that fluidized beds didn't scale up very well, and they had some serious waste issues. There are a lot of great ideas floating around about how to make better use of coal -- I'm particularly interested in some of the in situ technologies. But I've learned over the decades that technological optimism is often misplaced. Yes, sometimes technology surprises us -- the advance of computers and the Internet is the ideal example. In other areas, technology hits a brick wall. We never got anywhere with fusion technology, and solar photovoltaic has shown only glacial improvement. Coal technology has progressed faster than solar photovoltaic, and I'm convinced that it will continue to improve. And certainly our huge reserves of coal make it incumbent upon us to push that technology as hard as we can. But it's not good enough yet, and the CO2 emissions are unacceptable.
Lastly, your pessimism about conservation would be justified if we make it voluntary. But I don't want to beg people to do the right thing. We already have a system in place for motivating people: the price mechanism. In the case of fossil fuels, the price mechanism isn't working because future generations don't get to bid for the fossil fuels, making the price artificially low. What we need to do is place taxes on fossil fuels that reflect our certainty that the supply of fossil fuels is diminishing. In other words, we build some rational anticipation into the price mechanism.
Now, before somebody screams, "Don't raise my taxes!" I'll rush to add that such a system should be revenue-neutral; it has to be balanced by reductions in other taxes.
I'll put these ideas together in a major post for discussion.
My problem is that too little, if any, attention is given to the possible natural processes that will counter global warming and lead to significant global cooling!
One process involves the consequences of cloud cover. If more water evaporates, then there will be more clouds. The altitude of such clouds have differing consequences from a cooling and heating perspective. Just how such factors may sort out on global climate changes is far from clear to me.
So far there is only a focus on carbon dioxide - this is not enough.
I haven't "conceded" this point....
"You also seem to have conceded the main point, that CO2 is the primary anthropogenic factor in global warming"
I merely state the evidence is not conclusive and suggested an alternative hypothesis. Yet, you are too narrow minded to accept that anything other than CO2 levels is causing global warming. There is evidence from ice core sample that 100 million years CO2 levels were MUCH higher.
If Global Warming 'chicken littles' concentrate only on eliminating CO2 emmsions and that is found not ot be the main cause, BILLIONS of taxdollars will be wasted, and NOTHING will be accomplished. Better to get the science right BEFORE you begin tinkering with the atmosphere.
The situation is analogous to the Iraq War. With flawed intellegence and planning, it was 'full speed ahead' into Iraq, and look how that has turned out so far.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Kris, you aver that the evidence in favor of CO2 being the primary anthropogenic factor is "not conclusive". OK, I'll happily concede that point. It's not conclusive, it's "almost certain". (Again, I refer you to the NAS and IPCC reports on this question.) In terms of political decision-making, there isn't much difference between the two. We still have a big problem, we're almost certain that the problem is CO2 emissions. It is therefore highly unlikely that spending billions of dollars on CO2 abatement will be wasted.
But have you at least have abandoned that alternative hypothesis you offered involving contributions to global warming from radio emissions?
I HAVE examined the evidence. I find it inconclusive.
That's why I'm positing an alternate hypothesis.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
OK, so you've examined the evidence and found it inconclusive. You won't state your reasons why your find it inconclusive nor will you offer any criticisms of the evidence. You just closed your eyes, thought real hard, and the word "inconclusive" floated into your consciousness. That's fine with me. But it doesn't carry much weight with anybody else.
And now let me answer the homework problem I gave you that you are unable to answer. I'll restate it for everybody's convenience. Let's calculate how much all those heat-generating radio waves will add to global temperature. We'll be really generous to your hypothesis and assume that the entire output of all power stations goes into those evil heat-inducing radio waves -- that adds up to roughly 1 * 10**12 watts. The earth is currently in approximate thermal equilibrium at a surface temperature of 300 degrees Kelvin and a heat flow of 1.7 * 10**17 watts. So we're adding 1 * 10**12 watts to that heat flow. Thus, the heat flow is increased by a proportionate factor of 1.00001. Inverting the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to solve for T, we get
T = (P / sigma)**0.25
We need to calculate only the proportionate change in T, so we use:
rho-T = rho-P**0.25
In this case, rho-P equals 1.00001. Therefore, we calculate
rho-T = 1.00001 ** 0.25
rho-T = 1.0000025
This is a proportionate temperature change, so the new absolute temperature is:
1.0000025 * 300 degrees Kelvin
or 300.00075 degrees Kelvin
Thus, the net increase in the earth's surface temperature due to the heat generated by our electricity is a grand total of 0.00075 degrees Kelvin -- a value so tiny that I doubt we can even measure it.
That's what your alternative hypothesis adds up to. In science, we have a technical term for this kind of result: "diddlysquat".
How many times do I have to tell you Erasmussimo before it will penetrate your thick skull.
The Stefan Boltzmann equation apllies ONLY to radiative heat transfer, NOT to convection or conduction, which undoubtly is the mechanism some of the energy waste heat escapes to the atmosphere.
BTW, you are using the simple linear form of Stephan Boltzman.
The integral form is ...Heat Flux dv (from 0 to infinty) = S-B constant * T^4 / pi (source: Intro to Phyiscal Gas Dynamics, Vincetti and Kruger)
The properly estimate the heat flux emitted from the Earth (which is totally irrelevant to this discussion) you'd have to integrate over the sphere of the Earth. (or be be technically correct, the ellipsiod)
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Kris, you're doing what's called "formula-grabbing" -- grabbing a formula out of a book without understanding how it's used. Yes, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation produces the power per unit area for a blackbody at a specified temperature. But we're not using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate net global output -- we already know that number, and it's 1.7 * 10**17. We're doing ***differential*** calculation based on small changes in power levels. For such differential calculations, all the constant values get canceled out, so you don't need to use them. Did you notice that I never once used the Stefan-Boltzmann constant? That's because it's a constant and gets washed out in the differential calculation.
In the same fashion, the earth's surface area is a constant and so need not be taken into account in differential calculations.
It's time for me to abandon all hope that you'll behave in a rational manner. I confess, I took an almost sadistic pleasure in trashing your absurd arguments, but it's time for me to break off this pointless discussion and work with rational people to help solve problems. I shall be ignoring all your comments from this point forward. I invite you to declare victory, call me a coward for not responding to you, verbally prance about in triumph, and so forth. Enjoy yourself.
Another flaw in your analysis is that Stephan-Boltzman applies to an EQUILBRIUM situation.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
****
I would like to get a sense of how many of our States Congressional Districts have ‘08 Delegates. Please email your: unity08 name, State & District
Please format as shown: your08name-NY04
Thank you, Stu from CT02 unity08_ct02@yahoo.com
It seems to me the only solution to Global Warming is to cut back Energy production.
Of course, niether Party would support that idea.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
The sun is getting hotter and nothing we do can stop it. However we speed it up drastically faster than the sun would ever do without our help! Do not worry as this happens often on Gods planet. You think the Pyramids were built for looks or as tombs for dead kings? Negative - underneath are long term bunkers and food storage where prior civilizations went underground during very long periods of harsh weather change caused by flying rocks! Blood in the sky! Floods and earthquakes! My point is we have "bigger" problems headed our way and must build modern cities partially built underground, potentially with no cars - just StarTrek mass transit! Either way we must get it in gear as we now live is straw houses just waiting for the next natural disaster from space or worse!"
Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
There is not debate here, for we know this will come... So REBUILD AND PROSPER while we FEED AND SAVE!!! - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I found I made an error in calculating the total mass of the Earth's atmosphere (apparently Erasmussimo was too obsessed with the Stephan-Boltzmann equation to bother to check my math)
I updated the calculations made above. The results are not quite as alarming. Nevertheless, the science is sound.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Valid point, Kris.
Lighting, for example. Incadescent lights turn most of the electricity they consume into heat, not light. Fluorescents are better, LEDs better still.
We began, as a country, to look at efficiency, reducing waste, after the late 70s "gas crisis", but we forgot...
The CO2 reflective properties not only trap solar heat, but "waste" heat we generate. Increasing efficiencies not only reduces waste heat, but reduces demand for energy as well - energy often produce by hydrocarbons. Insulation to reduce space heating and cooling needs are also factors to reduce both energy use and waste heat generation.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
It's not only lighting, it's everything that runs on electricty.
When you convert chemical energy into electrical or mechanical energy there is ALWAYS waste heat generated. That heat has to go somewhere.
Automobiles probably contribute quite a bit as well (when you run your car, your engine gets hot, right?.....where does that heat go?)
And the use of automobiles has grown expontially over the last 100 years, as well, right along with electral power generation.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Already being done, can always use more. http://www.ormat.com/
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
Quote - "Conservation is, and always will be, a non-starter simply because it relies on mass-adoption of specific behaviors for any of it to be truly effective. Where conservation can be applied is in harmony with (more significant) local, state and federal tax code changes to encourage individuals and business to invest in conservation."
What kind of lesson can we take from WW2? Was the WW2 conservation campaign successful? Can we make energy conservation a patriotic duty? Should we even try in a market economy? Is that the role of government?
One of the great failures of post-9/11 government IMO was the inability to mobilize the nation after the attack.
The American people wanted a task to perform; every American wanted to make 9/11 personal - and their plea was ignored by government(by both parties, at every level).
President Bush told people to spend money during Christmas season. Mayor Guiliani asked people to come to New York and see a show. Was this the best that we had to offer? Do we still line up to bring firefighters and paramedics food?
People will do incredible things when they feel that the cause is just - and at the end of the day, most Americans want to be Americans first, and Democrats and Republicans second. They want to be useful -but nobody ever asked for their help after 9/11; September turned into October, and our government could do nothing better than to ask them to shop. No wonder people are so cynical today.
A true Unity party would recognize that fact. Conservation may never solve the problem, but I would be careful not to write it off too soon. There is an America out there crying out for leadership. They will get the same old stuff from the two major parties... where will Unity08 stand?
Unity08 should force every American to take ownership of the entire energy issue - from Global Warming, to alternative fuels, to the effect of energy on our geo-political standing in the post 9/11 world. We've had six years of political posturing; people are ready for something better.
Jeff C
Once again, I'm in agreement, Jeff.
Where would we be, if, on 9/12/2001, we'd heard - "starting today, we're going to strive to become energy independent, and it involves all of you."
We can't back up the calendar, but that's what we need to hear going forward. Conservation, alternative fuels (Bio diesel, petroleum from coal, etc), alternative sources of energy (wind, solar, fusion, etc.) - do it for the combined goals of energy independence and reducing global warming - those 2 desirable goals coincide.
Conservation is one piece - it reduces the amount of energy we need to supply - by any means.
How nice would it be if we didn't need MidEast oil and reduced global warming and got cleaner air as well?
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
In 1941, television didn't exist en masse. Information was tightly controlled and parceled through very few outlets. Folks believed what their neighbors believed because all were told the same thing.
Today, the vast number and variety of information outlets and the cynical use of these to diverge opinion toward competing outcomes and interests ensures that strong common opinions and actions are difficult if not impossible to come by.
Read the posts regarding global warming or peak oil. Do you find consensus or even a willingness to arrive at consensus?
I am NOT against conservation, in fact I ride a bike to work every day, winter, spring, summer and fall. I use public transportation as much as possible. I don't have to. I just do.
However, I am also quite sure that the chances for mass-adoption of conservation; be it in transportation or the in the (dis)use of air conditioning is a non-starter simply because there are enough folks who simple won't believe in it and there are enough information outlets available to offer them cover that conservation simply won't make a dent in our energy profile.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
I think conservation is a big part of the puzzle here. Web waste more energy in this country than the rest of the world consumes! People will not do it voluntarily and must be given a range of practical choices. One of the key determinants of that choice is thru price and/or law. On 9/12/07, we should have mandated 55 MPH nation-wide and aphased in a $1.50 per gallon (over 5 years) Energy Independence tax with revenues going to further conservation measures and promising Manhattan-like hi-tech projects (cellulosic ethanol, hybrid hydogen vehicles, etc) and combined with nuke and domestic oil/natural gas development.
We need all the arrows in our quiver on this one and coservation, while not a be-all-end-all panacea, is a big pillar. So lets not preclude our options and let the shared sacrice begin albiet 5 years too late. we in this country need to share some of the sacrfice now heaped overwhelmingly on our troops abroad in far ramparts. Nothing would do more to reign in these dictators that a decent medium long range Energy Policy that could effective reduce the world-wide per barre cost of oil. So I say raise the gas tax gradually over the next 5 years, mandate 55 MPH, present viable options, and let people make the choice on how to conserve.
Remember "Ought Implies Can" on this issue!
I cannot agree that reducing the speed limit would save anything. Have you driven on the highways lately? No one pays attention to them anyway.
Adding another tax to the already over-taxed American people would not sit well with anyone.
I would fully support, as I know many others would, if we would greatly reduce our foreign aid and use those many billions of dollars to fund alternative fuel sources as well as many other projects here at home. I get very angry when I look at a list of how much money we send other countries when we deny our own citizens many basic human needs. When we can honestly say that there is not a single American suffering from hunger or malnutrition, and that we are no longer dependent on others for our energy, is when we should consider using our citizens tax dollars to help other countries.
Our Foreign Aid is miniscule in our National Budget. We'll all have to adjust and modify our behavior someway in this new world to bear and share some of the sacrifice that are troops are experiecing for our energy progfligacy. We must think and actanew. The same-old-same-old kick the can down the road will just not work in the 21st century world and it will be incumbent on the next leadership to give some of those hard truths and implement a fair phased-in program whether it be a gas/carbon tax, energy rebates, or increased MPH enforcement, new technologies. In the context of what is going on in the world today, we need someone to make that case and present a decent and fair and imlementable program fully cognizant of the costs and benefits! It's time for shared sacrifice - we make sure it is shared! That is what got us thru WWII.
I agree, John. It is hard to compare eras - and people didn't have as many options for news.
Quote -"Read the posts regarding global warming or peak oil. Do you find consensus or even a willingness to arrive at consensus?
I am NOT against conservation, in fact I ride a bike to work every day, winter, spring, summer and fall. I use public transportation as much as possible. I don't have to. I just do."
I do read the posts on this forum, and I agree that consensus is difficult; I might even add that you and I seem to comprise a minority of two on immigration policy - when compared with the feelings of the group. Consensus is hard to find.
And don't think for a moment that I believe you are against conservation. I have read enough of your writing to get a good idea of your stand on the issues.
I just believe that we have a problem with leadership - and the problem starts with the president. We will never solve these critical problems until we find a way to get the American people emotionally invested in finding solutions.
Where would we be right now if the president had used his 90% approval rating (which was true after 9/11) to encourage conservation of resources as a matter of public duty. It might not have worked - but it would have been worth a try.
What would have happened if, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the president had been on TV every night asking for a massive volunteer effort from every US citizen to help. Would the Gulf Coast be any better off today? Would it have been worth a try?
So much of the relief effort after Katrina happened in spite of our government - not because of our government.
When there is a massive disaster, very few people complain if the president tries to do everything possible to help people - even if his efforts are in vain. Sometimes, in difficult circumstances, it is enough to know that you aren't forgotten.
President Bush had a 90% approval rating, and that doesn't happen very often. People were looking to him for leadership, and they didn't find any.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
You are right, the power of the bully pulpit, when used for the people and not for Halliburton is a powerful thing.
I think Milligan's thoughts on conservation through taxation is worth discussing. I remember discussing carbon taxation with an economist at UCLA last year and his opinion was that source-based taxation is the easiest to filter through the economy because by default, the heaviest users downstream pay the most.
Providing alternative tax rebates for demonstrable lowering of one's energy profile might also be worth considering. the year-on-year data is available at the address / consumer level, so that should be pretty easy to identify and reward (cffooma)...
kacz
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
Actually,
You and John M. are probably right - the reality of mandating conservation in today's political arena is tilted toward the carrot/stick argument. Make it expensive to pollute, and make it profitable to conserve.
You wouldn't think less of a guy just because he occasionally pays homage to the(hopelessly out-of-date)dreamy-eyed idealism of his youth, would you?
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com