next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
There are some really outrageous comments that I would like to address. These points are of particular relevance to Nova Scotia and the Maritimes, where we have an excellent climate to make use of much solar energy. Too often, political debates get muddled with such POV's as Kevin's, and we all lose out. On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, kchishol wrote: > David M. Wimberly wrote: ...del... > > I will be encouraging the Sierra Club to stop endorsing the conversion to > > burning more natural gas which is wrong because: > > 1) This doesn't really result in burning less in total, either in > > the present (gas is simply burned IN ADDITION TO coal and oil) or in the > > future (coal deposits already open are typically used until used up- gas > > deposits allowed to be opened will be similarly consumed until gone). > > With a given demand for energy by consumers, the question is: What energy > sources are to be used to meet this demand? Natural gas has a less detrimental > effect on the Greenhouse Phenomenon than does coal or residual oil. This is the first boo-boo. People do not drink gas and eat coal. We do not consume energy, but use energy to provide us with things we want... that seems pretty basic, but when we reframe issues of what people want as opposed to what fuel we can use, other possibilities can be considered. Passive solar houses, public transport, and other forms of energy efficiency can dramatically decrease (for now) our dependence on fossil fuels. To argue the merits of gas over coal without consideration for these measures is like choosing between different forms of execution. > > 2) This doesn't result in sustainable energy usage such as passive > > solar, etc. but further delays it until all the gas is gone too. > > The sad fact is that energy is one of the bargins of our time, and in many > cases, it is not economic to implement conservation measures. Imagine the big > switch to small cars and solar powered cars, if gasoline prices were raised to > say $1.00 per litre. To raise gasoline prices would require political will, which is in very short supply. In the US alone, the taxpayers pay $111 Billion above and beyond what tax revenues they get for road building and driving-related costs- the equivalent of 70 cents a gallon. And that doesn't count the health care costs for americans (or maritimers). Consumers here don't pay the cost either. Economically, OIL IS NOT A BARGAIN. Another sad fact, besides economics, is that for the Ogoni, for the Karen and many more, OIL IS NOT A BARGAIN. Do you take into account these externalities when you make such pronoucements as 'energy is one of the bargains of our time'? > > 4) Delaying implimentation of sustainable energy just gives more > > time for the corporations to take total control of this too so we will end up being mortgaged to use what should be "free" energy. (See "Who Owns The Sun", a book with the disgusting details on this.) > > Who is"delaying the implementation of sustainable energy?" You, and I, and > every other Consumer who does not switch to sustainable energy consumption It's more than just you and I. There are political decisions around standards for building homes. Decisions about city planning. And massive subsidies and outdated tax regimes.... etc.. etc.. Your view on this betrays a neo-liberal attitude- if customers want it, they'll get it- that obscures the real political challenges that we face. Peace- Daniel.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects