Re: Yet another empty gesture

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

At least California has done many other things which actually do save
significant amounts of energy and make significant reductions in greenhouse
emissions. California figures are about 30% better than the US average and
would be better yet if the current federal administration hadn't blocked
some of their efforts regarding automobile efficiency standards.

Cuba and Venezuela have also mandated CFLs.

While the CFIs push CFLs the US electric power industry is planning to build
150 coal-fired generating plants which will only make the greenhouse effect
worse...

     http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/21coal.html?ref=science

BTW, most of Australia's electric power comes from dirty coal-fired
generators.

"Homer L. Hazel" <hNoOmerlhANTI@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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