NHNE News List
Current Members: 1346
Subscribe/unsubscribe/archive info at the bottom of this message.

NHNE Spring Summer 2005 Fundraiser:
Money needed = $4,944.00
Donations to date = $3,181.11
Number of people who have helped = 65
Funds still needed = $1,762.89
To make a tax-deductible donation:
NHNE Website: http://tinyurl.com/8su4u
PayPal: http://tinyurl.com/7jyub
eMail: nhne@...
Phone: (928) 282-6120
Fax: (815) 642-0117
Mail: NHNE, P.O. Box 2242, Sedona, AZ 86339
Credit Cards: Please include number, expiration date, phone number.
Your donations are tax-deductible. Thank you!

------------

READER COMMENT:

"just a token of my apreciation: not much, but from the heart and mind. if
the the 1,282 members would send $10 bucks you'd be in 'bizness'. i do
really apreciate and spread your infos. i can speak for many and i think
that we acquire lots of knowledge through your effots. don't give [up]. we
the silent majority are solidary." -- love from Mexico, guylaine

-----------

GREENHOUSE HYPOCRISY
By Robert J. Samuelson
Washington Post
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Page A21

http://tinyurl.com/djmo6

Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing"
source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists
constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the
upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound
and fury is mainly exhibitionism -- politicians pretending they're saving
the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they
can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they
admitted that, though this seems unlikely.

Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the
United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd
expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's
base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the
International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of
Europe hasn't done much better.

Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy,
8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands,
13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that
Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made
big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After
reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in
eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government
had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2
emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto
targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would
have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic
growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders
everywhere deplore global warming -- and then do little. Except for Eastern
European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries
have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent;
Japan's, 18.9 percent.

We are seeing similar exhibitionism in the United States. The U.S.
Conference of Mayors recently endorsed Kyoto. California and New Mexico have
adopted "targets" for emission cuts, reports the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change. All this busywork won't much affect global warming, but who
cares? The real purpose is for politicians to brandish their environmental
credentials. Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it
wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions.

"We expect CO2 emissions growth in China between now and 2030 will equal the
growth of the United States, Canada, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New
Zealand and Korea combined," says Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In
India, he says, about 500 million people lack electricity; worldwide, the
figure is 1.6 billion. Naturally, poor countries haven't signed Kyoto; they
won't sacrifice economic gains -- poverty reduction, bigger middle classes
-- to combat global warming. By 2030, the IEA predicts, world energy demand
and greenhouse gases will increase by roughly 60 percent; poor countries
will account for about two-thirds of the growth. China's coal use is
projected almost to double; its vehicle fleet could go from 24 million to
130 million.

Like most forecasts, these won't come true. But unless they're wildly
unreliable, they demonstrate that greenhouse emissions will still rise.
Facing this prospect, we ought to align rhetoric and reality.

First, we should tackle some energy problems. We need to reduce our use of
oil, which increasingly comes from unstable or hostile regions (the Middle
East, Russia, Central Asia, Africa). This is mainly a security issue, though
it would modestly limit greenhouse gases. What should we do? Even with
today's high gasoline prices, we ought to adopt a stiff oil tax and tougher
fuel economy standards, both to be introduced gradually. We can shift toward
smaller vehicles, with more efficient hybrid engines. Unfortunately,
Congress's energy bills lack these measures.

Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition.
Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much
warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we
can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone
think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not
an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon.

Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical
way of curbing greenhouse gases. About 80 percent of CO2 emissions originate
outside the transportation sector -- from power generation and from fuels
for industrial, commercial and residential use. Any technology solution
would probably involve some acceptable form of nuclear power or an economic
way of removing CO2 from burned fossil fuels. "Renewable" energy (wind,
solar, biomass) won't suffice. Without technology gains, adapting to global
warming makes more sense than trying to prevent it. Either way, the Bush
administration rightly emphasizes research and development.

What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make
speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors
against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by
treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures
will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits.
Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should
anyone applaud?

------------

NHNE News List:

To subscribe, send a message to:
nhnenews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to:
nhnenews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

To review current posts:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/messages

Published by David Sunfellow
NewHeavenNewEarth (NHNE)
eMail: nhne@...
NHNE Website: http://www.nhne.com/
Phone: (928) 282-6120
Fax: (815) 642-0117

Appreciate what we are doing?
You can say so with a tax-deductible donation:
http://www.nhne.com/main/donations.html

P.O. Box 2242
Sedona, AZ 86339