<div>Roger et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A few comments on solutions to human induced global warming:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/307760_climate16.html">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/307760_climate16.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/Chi-Jen%20Yang%20A%20Manhattan%20Project%20for%20Climate%20Change.doc"><font color="blue" size="2">http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/Chi-Jen%20Yang%20A%20Manhattan%20Project%20for%20Climate%20Change.doc
</font></a><font size="2">.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="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">
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
</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>-------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div>Roger wrote:</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> You have presented a lot of information as to the potential problem. What are your solutions.<br><br>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.
<br><br>Things I am willing to do; promote new technology for enery sources in the way of tax incentives and research funding.<br>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.
<br>Roger<br>-----</blockquote></div>