[ale] [OT] Psychology of Denial about Climate Change

[Lightner, Jeff]

je

"Industry also claimed removing the lead from paint was going to be cost
prohibitive but we managed to make it work any way."

 

Of course if you'd had to suffer through those cars with the early
catalytic converters in the late 70s early 80s you might run screaming
at the idea of a similar change.  There was nothing more fun than
hitting the gas to merge onto an interstate (even at the nation 55 MPH
speed limit we had then) and waiting to see if the car would actually
get up to speed before that semi caught up with you.  My Ford Granada
did 0 to 60 eventually.

 

But I agree moving it to power generating plants would help.  Not only
that since those are typically not all over like the cars themselves
localized concentrations of emissions might not be so bad at ground
level where we all breathe.

 

 

 

________________________________

From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Jim
Kinney
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:41 AM
To: damon at damtek.com; Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
Subject: Re: [ale] [OT] Psychology of Denial about Climate Change

 

 

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Damon L. Chesser <damon at damtek.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 23:06 -0500, Pete Hardie wrote:
> I am not stepping into the climate briar patch, but I would like to
> see the US get off the oil kick.
> If we can convert to all electric cars, etc, we get more independence,
> less pollution, quieter

How are you going to generate all that electricity?  You do know that
electric cars just move the source of the pollution, not eliminate it,
right?  Instead of your tail pipe, you move the "carbon" to a power
plant.  Did I mention, due to the laws of supply and demand, now your
home heating/electric bill is going to dramatically go up?  Imagine at
6pm when 4.5 million people in ATL get home and plug in their cars.
BOOM!  Big brown out.


One advantage of moving the pollution source from mobile to stationary
is remediation becomes feasible. At this time, we have no technology in
place or even on the drawing board that can sequester CO, CO2, O3, NOx
stack outputs that are not claimed by industry to be cost prohibitive. 

Industry also claimed removing the lead from paint was going to be cost
prohibitive but we managed to make it work any way.
 

	
	> roads, and I can top off my car at home (solar, grid power, or
even
	> put the dog on a treadmill generator)
	>
	> Wouldn't it be great to not worry about what the Middle East
is doing?

	On this we agree.  Dare I say, Drill hear, Drill now?
	>


I can't find the reference (bookmarked elsewhere on another machine) to
the discussion that if the entire planet were just a thin crust 2 miles
thick and the remaining insides were nothing but oil, at the current
rate of growth in energy consumption  based on oil, we would still run
out in about 300 years.

If oil costs 10x what it does now, the obesity problem would abate as
people had to actually _do_work_ instead of having a machine do it for
them.

When gas prices hit the $5/gal amount, the roads were far less congested
and the EPA reported a notable drop in metropolitan air pollution.

A better solution to traffic congestion is not to widen roads but to
raise the gas taxes thus forcing people to be more prudent in their
consumption. Take the revenue and spend it better ways to move large
quantities of people and explore short run smaller-scale people movers
(automatic trollys, flywheel busses from neighborhoods to larger
shopping areas and other people movers - i.e. make the planner actually
PLAN! ) 

	
	
	
	--
	Damon
	damon at damtek.com

	
	_______________________________________________
	Ale mailing list
	Ale at ale.org
	http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
	See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
	http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo




-- 
-- 
James P. Kinney III
Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness
 
Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
 
Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
----------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
----------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20100225/131754e8/attachment.html