T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > On Feb 7, 3:12 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't see your point.
>
> Maybe look at the base again: "If people need less energy..." Nowhere
> is that said. It is the opposite. Also, purge "need" from the
> language. Just say "use." They'll *use* more.
>
>> Tom was saying his energy bill would go up.
>
> It will (for tax "solutions"). So will everyone else's energy bill in
> CA. (It'll go up if he get's richer too, since he'll be spending
> more. So leftist solutions basically say to stall wealth increase, or
> even to reverse it. That is some bad ju-ju. I have no idea what
> right-wingers say.)
>
>> The paper you link to
>> indicates the opposite is true,...
>
> It doesn't say that. Read it again. For example: "The end result is
> a new balance between supply and demand at a /higher level/ of supply
> and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response." [my
> emphasis]
And totally aside from the issues of More Efficient Energy Production
Leading To Cheaper Power which leads to higher energy use in total - there's
the problem with global population increase which is much faster than any
efficiency increases. No matter what else happens energy use goes up and the
CO2 output increases more rapidly BECAUSE the population growth and hence
energy consumption is occuring not here in the USA so much as in China,
India and Africa where they cannot afford clean energy sources. Over the
next century the vast majority of energy use will occur in the third world
countries. In 8 more years it's predicted that China will exceed the CO2
output of the USA and it will be generated by high sulfer coal fired power
plants.
Asher will spend his time telling us that the USA should solve the problems
of the world and that it is all our fault that we wish to live comfortably.
Al Lunatic Gore was just on TV this morning with another lunatic offering
$25 million for "ideas to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere."
Now intelligent beings might see a problem here. Let's say that we followed
one line that was suggested - that we genetically engineer an ocean plankton
to use more CO2 - what's to stop it from removing too much? Would we then be
trying to find some way to introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere?
Maybe I can get some of that fortune by suggesting we solve the problem by
putting the world back in order. North Africa used to be a large forest that
was hued down to build the tremendous war fleets of the Mediterranean and
later the world's oceans. Why not install desalinization plants to supply
the water to replant the forest to change the weather patterns in North
Africa to return the semi-tropical conditions that used to be there before
it changed from deforestation?
news:[email protected]...
>> > On Feb 7, 3:12 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't see your point.
>
> Maybe look at the base again: "If people need less energy..." Nowhere
> is that said. It is the opposite. Also, purge "need" from the
> language. Just say "use." They'll *use* more.
>
>> Tom was saying his energy bill would go up.
>
> It will (for tax "solutions"). So will everyone else's energy bill in
> CA. (It'll go up if he get's richer too, since he'll be spending
> more. So leftist solutions basically say to stall wealth increase, or
> even to reverse it. That is some bad ju-ju. I have no idea what
> right-wingers say.)
>
>> The paper you link to
>> indicates the opposite is true,...
>
> It doesn't say that. Read it again. For example: "The end result is
> a new balance between supply and demand at a /higher level/ of supply
> and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response." [my
> emphasis]
And totally aside from the issues of More Efficient Energy Production
Leading To Cheaper Power which leads to higher energy use in total - there's
the problem with global population increase which is much faster than any
efficiency increases. No matter what else happens energy use goes up and the
CO2 output increases more rapidly BECAUSE the population growth and hence
energy consumption is occuring not here in the USA so much as in China,
India and Africa where they cannot afford clean energy sources. Over the
next century the vast majority of energy use will occur in the third world
countries. In 8 more years it's predicted that China will exceed the CO2
output of the USA and it will be generated by high sulfer coal fired power
plants.
Asher will spend his time telling us that the USA should solve the problems
of the world and that it is all our fault that we wish to live comfortably.
Al Lunatic Gore was just on TV this morning with another lunatic offering
$25 million for "ideas to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere."
Now intelligent beings might see a problem here. Let's say that we followed
one line that was suggested - that we genetically engineer an ocean plankton
to use more CO2 - what's to stop it from removing too much? Would we then be
trying to find some way to introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere?
Maybe I can get some of that fortune by suggesting we solve the problem by
putting the world back in order. North Africa used to be a large forest that
was hued down to build the tremendous war fleets of the Mediterranean and
later the world's oceans. Why not install desalinization plants to supply
the water to replant the forest to change the weather patterns in North
Africa to return the semi-tropical conditions that used to be there before
it changed from deforestation?