[Vision2020] Princeton University Study: Global Warming Solutions

[lfalen]

Thanks for the web site. I will print and read. I am also printing the Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual. It is rather long. It may be a while before I get it read.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:11:23 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Princeton University Study: Global Warming Solutions

> Roger et. al.
> 
> A few comments on solutions to human induced global warming:
> 
> First, given your comment about "drastic" measures to address climate
> change, I think we need to re-frame the discussion to view our current
> development, resource extraction and energy consumption as "drastic" given
> the impacts on the Earth's biosphere.  Our lifestyle is "drastic" to begin
> with.  An equation asking what would happen to the Earth's biosphere if all
> 6 billion plus humans lived as the average US citizen, makes the point.  And
> with the Earth's population expected to reach 9 or ten billion... Consider
> the fossil fuel use alone this would mandate?  This would also have gigantic
> environmental impacts on many other aspects of the biosphere.  China and
> India combined are now using more fossil fuel than the USA, and are
> drastically increasing this use, though per capita they are far behind the
> US.  But if we assume development globally based on the current US system of
> resource extraction and energy consumption the environmental impacts would
> be massive.
> 
> So we need to change to a sustainable system.  No big revelation there.
> Global warming is just one very serious consequence of the problem with the
> way we think and act regarding our relationship with the environment and all
> life on Earth.  We act like the dominators of a system that will bend to our
> will without overwhelming "blow back."  This is a serious miscalculation,
> that the human race will be facing in the next two centuries.
> 
> Solving the human induced global warming problem is greatly a matter of
> political/economic/social will.  I think it is possible to have a high
> standard of living using 50 percent or less of the energy the US now
> consumes per capita.  Even if the technology were available to replace
> fossil fuels, which is still unknown, there is great resistance in
> governments, business and the decision making of consumers to adopt the
> technologies or make the lifestyle changes and economic reorganizations that
> will probably be involved to ween ourselves from massive fossil fuel use.
> Using mass transit more frequently rather than personal motor vehicles is
> just one change in lifestyle that many would resist.  Consider that even
> attempting to encourage US drivers to purchase smaller more fuel efficient
> cars is a tough sell.  People obviously are choosing to purchase those huge
> SUVs, and I don't necessarily blame the auto industry for the fact that
> consumers are making these choices.  If consumers stopped buying them, the
> auto industry would quit making them.
> 
> I have mentioned CO2 sequestration technology, especially for coal energy
> generation, so I think the development of this technology should receive
> large government funding, and its use mandated for private industry.  Of
> course, this will increase the cost of electricity from coal, which makes
> sense, given that the eventual economic damage from global warming from coal
> plants CO2 emissions is now not being paid for.  We are getting cheap
> electricity from coal while the eventual environmental damage and economic
> cost of this cheap energy is dumped onto the next generation or further, a
> analysis that applies to other "cheap" energy fossil fuels.
> 
> We might adopt incredible solutions to stopping global warming like
> injecting the stratosphere with sulfur (mimicking volcanoes), solar
> umbrellas launched into space, or building atmospheric processors to remove
> CO2.  Or another wild idea is dumping huge amounts of iron into the ocean
> that would encourage algae/plankton absorbing CO2 in massive amounts which
> would then sink!  Article about a NASA study on these solutions:
> 
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/307760_climate16.html
> 
> Anyway, given your rejection of the Kyoto accords, I thought the following
> economic/political analysis from Princeton University, on how to approach
> solutions to global warming, which argues in favor of a Kyoto
> approach, might be interesting:
> 
> For some reason my crummy computer (maybe that's it, a crummy computer with
> a sinister and ancient Microsoft ME operating system) could not open the
> Wordpad document, so I read the html version.  Links to both are below:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/Chi-Jen%20Yang%20A%20Manhattan%20Project%20for%20Climate%20Change.doc
> .
> 
> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:HKmj7_uQeDUJ:www.princeton.edu/~step/people/Chi-Jen%2520Yang%2520A%2520Manhattan%2520Project%2520for%2520Climate%2520Change.doc+manhattan+project+global+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
> 
> -------
> 
> Ted Moffett
> -----------------
> Roger wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >  You have presented a lot of information as to the potential problem. What
> > are your solutions.
> >
> > I for one am unwilling to: reduce the human population by stopping
> > research on medical advances; Soylent Green type solutions; mandated birth
> > control; signing the Kyoto accords(which would hurt the economy of the US);
> > government control of all industry; or ridged controls that would bankrupt
> > most industries or drive prices though the roof( this would be catastrophic
> > to middle income and lower people);ban all animal production( methane is of
> > minor significance) Livestock are not the only source of menthane. It is
> > produced by plant products also. Six or seven years ago two Soil Science
> > Majors I knew were killed by methane in a spud cellar at Pasco. I have
> > inquires out  for a listing of products produced from livestock. There are a
> > lot of medical and health products that come from livestock. A vast aray are
> > also  used in industry. When I get this located I will post.
> >
> > Things I am willing to do; promote new technology for enery sources in the
> > way of tax incentives and research funding.
> > This would be for wind geothermal, nuclear energy etc;  promote fuel
> > efficiency; car pooling; tax credits for energy saving devices in the home
> > and business. there are many other things that can be done to find new
> > sources of energy, reduce waste and in general improve the environment. I am
> > in favor of any of these with in the free market system . I am not in favor
> > of curtailing civilization, imposing overwhelming government controls or
> > socializing industry.
> > Roger
> > -----
> 
>