Re: Yet another empty gesture

["Homer L. Hazel" <hNoOmerlhANTI@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings,

Don't laugh, but the California Legislature in their infinite wisdom
is going to try to do the same thing.  Sorry that I don't have
a reference, I heard it on the radio.

Larry Hazel

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45db366b.328110421@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Australia announced plans to ban incandescent bulbs.
>
> A story in The Age at...
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-glass-ceiling/2007/02/20/1171733766181.html
>
> says...
>
> "According to the Government, phasing out incandescent globes over the
> next
> three years could save about 800,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a
> year by 2012 and as much as 4 million tonnes in 2015."
>
> But goes on to say...
>
> "At best, that would be far less than a 1 per cent cut in Australia's
> greenhouse emissions, which were 564.7 million tonnes at last count in
> 2004
> and are forecast to keep growing rapidly."
>
> The "far less than a 1 percent cut in Australia's greenhouse emissions"
> agrees with my own analysis which I posted to another thread recently.
>
> IMO it would make far more sense to concentrate on things that might
> actually make a difference instead of all this posturing about CFLs by
> CFIs.
> It will require massive changes in lifestyles, economies, societies and
> governments worldwide to ameliorate the coming catastrophic effects of
> past
> inaction and empty gestures.
>
> Bill McKibben, in "Warning on Warming" which will appear in the March 15
> New
> York Review of Books says...
>
> "The IPCC report doesn't call for particular reduction figures. It does,
> however, make clear that reduction in emissions must be quick and deep.
> There is no more optimistic alternative. Even if we do everything right,
> we're still going to see serious increases in temperature, and all of the
> physical changes (to one extent or another) predicted in the report.
> However, there's reason to hope that if the US acts extremely aggressively
> and quickly we might be able to avoid an increase of two degrees Celsius,
> the rough threshold at which runaway polar melting might be stopped. This
> means that any useful legislation will have to feature both a very rapid
> start to reductions and a long and uncompromising mandate to continue
> them."
>
> An advance copy of McKibben's article is at...
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_022007M.shtml
>
>
> http://davehouston.net
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
> roZetta-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx