Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> Carbon dioxide sequestration may not be necessary.
>
>      http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18582/

If the Feds put up enough seed money, like they did with the autonomous land
robot contest . . .

http://news.com.com/Stanford+wins+2+million+in+robotic+car+race/2100-11394_3
-5892115.html

. . . there's no telling what sort of incredibly creative results could be
obtained.  Apparently, we're finally waking up at a policy level to the
pollution problem.   We did have a warning back when we first learned that
car exhausts could add up to effect local climates in the form of smog.

I'd still like to see much more research on climatology.  The documentary on
how much brighter the sky got after 9/11's three day ban on flying really
got me thinking.  I wonder what percent of global warming may be due to the
exhaust products of billions of gallons of jet fuel burned every day, very
high in the atmosphere?   If you look at the sky over a big city late in the
day, the contrail clouds are quite numerous.

It may be we discover that commerical jet traffic is the single largest
contributor to the greenhouse effect and that we couldn't design a better
system to create a heat reflecting layer high up in the atmosphere.  After
all, heavy industry has been around for 100 years without the glaciers
melting.  That's happened recently - so has the expansion of commercial
aviation.  Do you think we have the political will to go back to ships and
trains if that's what it takes to save the world?

--
Bobby G.