Text 11398, 125 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 19:09:53 av Josh Hill (14837.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:01:43 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
>news:0001HW.C1E8EEA2026DDFE3F0182648@news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:26:15 -0500, Carl wrote
>> (in article <jcednX881avVH17YnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>>
><snip>
>
>>>> All of the things that are practical and reasonable (and won't destroy 
>>>> the
>>> economy) won't be enough to make much difference for a very long time. 
>>> That
>>> doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the damage we cause, but 
>>> get
>>> past the "If we don't do this right now..." rhetoric  and accept that if 
>>> GW
>>> proponents are right, we're going to have to deal with it and everyone in
>>> the US giving up cars completely and having solar panels and windmills in
>>> our back yards won't prevent it.  <<
>>
>> I think there are many things we can do that are practical and reasonable,
>> but there are some strong lobbies -- the auto lobby and the oil lobby,
>> particularly -- who have a vested interest in our _not_ doing those 
>> things.
>
>I don't think the car companies care what the technology is as long as they 
>can make
>a profit.
>
>As to oil companies...no one with either an emoptional or financial interest 
>in one
>side of an issue (any issue) is likely to believe the other side's "facts" 
>easily.

The oil companies, no doubt, but not because they don't believe the
facts -- like the tobacco and asbestos industries before them, they
know damn well what the facts are -- but because they typically put
profit before principle.

Which said, it seems that industry is increasingly lobbying /for/
carbon trading. That's because they know it's inevitable, and they
want a manageable Federal system that will allow them to proceed as
efficiently as possible. For example,

Coalition For Firm Limit On Emissions 
 
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: January 19, 2007

Ten major companies with operations across the economy -- utilities,
manufacturing, petroleum, chemicals and financial services -- have
banded together with leading environmental groups to call for a firm
nationwide limit on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to
reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years. 

Introduction of this group, which includes industry giants like
General Electric, DuPont and Alcoa, is aimed at adding to the recent
impetus for Congressional action on emissions controls and the
creation of a market in which allowances to emit carbon dioxide could
be traded in a way that achieves the greatest reduction at the lowest
cost.

The diversity of the coalition -- some members had already come out
for other forms of emissions control, like a carbon tax or voluntary
controls, but others had been silent on climate-change issues until
now -- could send a strong signal that businesses want to get ahead of
the increasing political momentum for federal emissions controls, in
part to ensure that their long-term interests are protected. 

Many energy producers and manufacturers have expressed concern that
various state efforts, if not coordinated, could lead to a scattershot
system of regulation. Others worry that harsher measures, like a stiff
tax on fossil fuels, the biggest contributor to global-warming gases,
could be imposed if they do not reach a consensus on a legislative
approach. 

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50B12FD35540C7A8DDDA80894DF404482


>> We could talk about "Who Killed the Electric Car?" next...  Do you know 
>> how
>> many times I asked my Saturn dealer when _I_ could get an electric car all
>> through the 90s?  Rather than take it as a serious suggestion, or note it
>> down to pass along to corporate in Spring Hill, they usually just laughed,
>> assuming I was making a joke.  Same thing when I asked about a hybrid,
>> although now they're absurdly proud to tell me that they have a hybrid 
>> SUV,
>> big whoop.  :-p
>
>People have been hearing solar/windmill/electric cars since the 70's when 
>the technology wasn't feasible en masse.  That's part of the problem; these 
>days people expect *new* technologies to save us from our problems.  Old 
>solutions are just so...boring and uninteresting.  Car companies didn't see 
>a market in old technology that costs more.
>
>The last I heard, the sales of hybrid vehicles have started to level off.

I haven't seen the film Amy mentioned, but the main problem with
electric cars is that we don't yet have batteries good enough to make
a car that's comparable in cost and capabilities to what we drive
today.

The best bet in the short term, I think: E85 made with cellulosic
ethanol (price $1.30 per gallon). Adds virtually nothing to the cost
of a vehicle, in fact, several million vehicles can already use it.
Followign close on, plug-in hybrids (suitable batteries should be
available in five years or so). Vehicle cost a few thousand more than
a standard vehicle at current prices, but that may change -- certainly
companies like Toyota are working to drive the price differential
down. A few years later, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which will
likely make the internal combustion engine obsolete. Look for it all
to happen once Bush is out and replaced by someone competent.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)