>WD wrote: "eco-propaganda has been a major part of the curriculum in
>American public schools for at least the better part of the last two
>decades, but it's wholly compatible with consumer capitalism."
>
>Never a truer word...
>
>Patrick wrote: "So James, you are confronted with lots of changed
>evidence. None of it
>is disputable."
>
>Well, if nothing is disputable, it does not really make any sense to
>discuss it, does it?
>
>But you forgot to say what is it that you think is indisputable:
>Papal infallibility? The superiority of the white race? That the
>earth goes around the Sun?
>
>Miles wrote:
>"the U. S. uses about 25% of the world's nonrenewable energy
>supplies to maintain our industrialized society. Given the finite
>resources of oil, coal, and gas, how can every 6% segment of the
>world's population use 25% of the energy?"
>
>It is not easy to parse those sentences, but
>1) the US does not use up 25 per cent of the world's nonrenewable
>energy supplies each year, it uses up 25 per cent of the world's
>nonrenewable energy supplies that are drilled each year (what the
>ratio of drilling to reserves is disputable)
>2) it is given that the resources of oil, coal and gas are finite,
>but the size of the reserves is very large
>3) if every six per cent segment of the world's population use as
>much energy as the US, then that sum would represent 6 per cent of
>the energy, not 25 per cent.
I see your point. Its actually the fault of the rest of the world, if only they could make an effort to keep up we wouldn't be in this mess. But no, they are just too damn lazy.
And you're right, there's plenty of the stuff in the ground. It would be expensive to extract enough oil, but that would be no problem. Since if the rest of the world used as much as the US, the price of oil would quickly go sky high. Then no-one could afford it and soon we'd all be driving coal-fired motor cars.
Dunno about the coal-fired aeroplanes though, might work I guess. After all, the air would be so thick with black smoke by then, they might be able to just retro-fit some paddle-wheels onto old jumbo jets.
>4) the US also represent around 25 per cent of world output (thugh
>that took a dip recently)
>5) greater energy use would engender greater energy efficiency
Good point. The rest of the world, by failing to waste energy on the same scale as the US, is to blame for lack of energy efficiency as well. Do-oh, the wasteful bastards!
>6) greater energy use would encourage energy supply innovations
>(already the European Green Parties are key promoters of nuclear
>energy - funny old world!)
Green political parties that promote nuclear energy sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Trust me on that, I'm from Tasmania and Tasmania invented green political parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Tasmania_Group So green political parties that promote nuclear energy would be a breach of patent.
I presume these European green parties also promote nuclear weapons? You have to admit, that's the cheapest way to dispose of nuclear waste. Make a bomb, blow something up. Gone.
Nuclear energy is in fact a mere by-product of the nuclear weapons industry. No-one ever develops a nuclear energy industry unless they want to develop nuclear weapons. Doesn't make any economic, let alone environmental sense on its own, but you need nuclear power reactors to develop the fuel for nuclear weapons. Might as well light some street lamps with the power they produce.
Those European green parties must practically glow in the dark?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas