Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
From The Guardian article, as quoted by Andrew:
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
This is important information for policy makers. Failure to publish this report could mean continued hunger and death for the world's poorest. But it isn't published to spare poor ol' Preznit Bush. How touching.
Are you making a joke or seriously suggesting that fuel problems can be solved by noting that "We're awash in used fry oil"? A little arithmetic shows that you could fuel up what, maybe four Hummers for a day with the used oil from one McDonalds?
It is kinda funny how you are trying to avoid admitting that lower human population could help save the Earth.
China has drastically lowered its rate of population growth, but the rate of growth of its CO2 emissions continues to climb.
China and the US are neck and neck in CO2 emissions, but have substantially different populations.
Policies target countries like India for population reduction, and ignore the US. But US CO2 emissions are 20 times per capita India's. Why not reduce the US population instead? Or that of Qatar?
Total human resource consumption (including pollution emission) does not have a one-to-one relationship with population. There are absolutely NO statistics that prove that such a relationship exists (not even for food or shelter). People who argue that there is such a relationship INVARIABLY refer to animal studies by analogy. Paul Erhlich's projections have long since been discredited, but still have a dangerous lock on discourse.
In the real world, population growth routinely UNDERESTIMATES growth in resource use. Humans are not rats. We can actually decrease population and at the same time increase demands on the environment. Population is simply an inadequate indicator of most environmental harm.
The argument that having less people means more for each person remaining may be true (or not), but it is not an environmental argument. The environment only reacts to how much total pollution is released, not to how many people released it.
At least, it's not the next step that's coming. Right now (despite the BMW 7-series Hydrogen, which was really just for PR), the two companies that are still going forward with hydrogen fuel cells as a really significant part of their plan are Honda and Mercedes.
Toyota, GM and most others are heading straight to plug-in hybrids (aiming for 2010 mass market release) which does give something which bypasses most of the liquid delivery system (they have a very, very small gasoline powered engine, mostly in case of emergencies).
Tesla is aiming for 2010-1011 with the next all-electric car, a sedan (unfortunately, the price is probably going to be around $60K, better than the roadster, which there is still little evidence they have delivered to many people, but, we'll see).
The issue isn't developing a car that can run on hydrogen, they've done that. They just can't make the fuel easily, cheaply, etc.
In any case, why is it necessary to have only one solution - I believe that's the problem we have now? If everyone goes to plug-in hybrids and electric, they have to, well, plug them in to the electricity grid which means the power has to come from somewhere. Where is it coming from? Coal? Natural gas? Nuclear? Wind? Solar?
I think a mix of solutions across fully electic, hybrid, possibly hydrogen, if they can get it to work, and next-generation bio-fuels, plus as much improvement and expansion of public transit as possible is the best solution. Why are people so eager to dump dependence on one set of energy companies for dependence on another set of them?
You are incorrigible.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
