Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Solution for Oil Depletion and Global Warming One and the Same? (was Grist)

Expand Messages
  • Mike Neuman
    For those who don t believe we have peaked out already on oil supply, there s really even more urgency to reduce burning oil for the purpose of slowing
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      For those who don't believe we have peaked out already on oil supply,
      there's really even more urgency to reduce burning oil for the purpose
      of slowing accelerating global warming. That is to preserve the
      safety of our climate from catastrophic global warming:
      http://madison.indymedia.org/feature/display/26626/index.php

      Both problems have approximately the same solution however. Simmons
      hits the nail on the head in that respect, but the nail won't sink
      into the American mindset unless the president greases it with a
      speech to the nation. That is unlikely to happen any time soon, of
      course.

      Mike

      Quote from Grist interview with peak-oil provocateur Matthew Simmons:

      There's nothing we can do to solve our problems, but everything we do
      that helps is a bridge to buy us time. Ultimately, we have to actually
      create some new forms of energy that don't exist today. Solar and wind
      are, of course, electricity, so not helpful near-term on the
      transportation front, which is the most intractable part of the
      problem. Biofuels need to be intensely examined, but corn-based
      ethanol is a scam because it requires such intensive oil inputs.

      What about the shift to hybrid engines and, ultimately, hydrogen?

      There are some 220 million cars currently on the road in the U.S.
      alone. The problem with that concept, which so many people think is
      the way you end the energy war, is it will take 30 years to turn over
      the entire vehicle fleet. We don't have 15 or 20 years, much less 30.

      We need to think on a grander scale. We have to find, for instance,
      far more energy-efficient methods of transporting products by rail and
      ship rather than trucks. We have to liberate the workforce from
      office-based jobs and let them work in their village, through the
      modern technology of emails and faxes and video conferencing. We have
      to address the distribution of food: Much of the food in supermarkets
      today comes from at least a continent or two away. We need to return
      to local farms. And we have to attack globalization: As energy prices
      soar, manufacturing things close to home will begin to make sense again.

      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, rickrise@e... wrote:
      >
      >
      > I thought you might be interested in this feature in Grist Magazine:
      >
      > Take a Peak, by Amanda Griscom Little. An interview with peak-oil
      provocateur Matthew Simmons.
      >
      http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/11/03/simmons/index.html?source=daily
      >
    • Todd Edelman
      ... [...] but the ... YEAH, sure, a greasey Texan could HELP here BUT at the same time there are mid-term elections coming up relatvely soon and if the
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Mike Neuman <mtneuman@...> wrote:
        [...] but the
        > nail won't sink
        > into the American mindset unless the president
        > greases it with a
        > speech to the nation. [...]

        YEAH, sure, a greasey Texan could HELP here BUT at the
        same time there are mid-term elections coming up
        relatvely soon and if the opposition has a united
        voice on this it could also help... I also prefer a
        different metaphor than a coffin for the "American
        mindset"... how about a plant that requires fertilizer
        and water (if only drip-irrigation)?

        ---

        > Quote from Grist interview with peak-oil provocateur
        > Matthew Simmons: [...] The problem with that
        concept, which so many
        > people think is
        > the way you end the energy war, is it will take 30
        > years to turn over
        > the entire vehicle fleet. We don't have 15 or 20
        > years, much less 30.
        YEAH, and the car companies themselves are now saying
        a widespread workable hydrogen scheme cant happen at a
        technical level for 20 years anyway, so this would
        mean at least 50 years if added to the 30 figure...

        [...]Simmons: We need to think on a grander scale. We
        have to
        > find, for instance,
        > far more energy-efficient methods of transporting
        > products by rail and
        > ship rather than trucks. We have to liberate the
        > workforce from
        > office-based jobs and let them work in their
        > village, through the
        > modern technology of emails and faxes and video
        > conferencing. We have
        > to address the distribution of food: Much of the
        > food in supermarkets
        > today comes from at least a continent or two away.
        > We need to return
        > to local farms. And we have to attack globalization:
        > As energy prices
        > soar, manufacturing things close to home will begin
        > to make sense again.
        THE problem here is that the major international
        associations involved in promoting rail
        <www.uic.asso.fr> and public transport <www.uitp.com>
        are going on and on about soaring demand for
        long-distance cargo and personal mobility as
        acceptable symptoms and rights of our supposedly free,
        globalised world.

        Their solution is more freight rail, sometimes
        connected with sea cargo (for example a development of
        the water route from Boston to Norway then by rail on
        to Russia and China) and more long-distance passenger
        rail, especially in Europe, with less priority on
        regional rail... and in the urban context support of
        buses, trams and metro, and cycling sometimes, which
        is fine, but too little support for densification. The
        emphasis is too much on PT trying to cover the same
        distances as automobiles, with surburbanisation not
        portrayed as a negative, but as a challenge for
        sustainability... with sustainable mobility being the
        solution.

        Todd, Green Idea Factory



        ___________________________________________________________
        To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
      • Mike Neuman
        ... as ... the ... Yes, the problem is that people nowadays expect unlimited mobility. The other problem is they get most of their products from afar, which
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 10, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Todd Edelman
          <traintowardsthefuture@y...> wrote:
          > ...
          > The
          > emphasis is too much on PT trying to cover the same distances as
          > automobiles, with surburbanisation not portrayed as a negative, but
          as
          > a challenge for sustainability... with sustainable mobility being
          the
          > solution.
          >
          > Todd, Green Idea Factory

          Yes, the problem is that people nowadays expect unlimited mobility.
          The other problem is they get most of their products from afar, which
          requires transport, rather than in the past when most products were
          produced locally or the local folks did without them.

          We are now facing an increasingly more tragic and apparent problem of
          global warming, with dire consequences already starting - the heat
          wave in Europe in 2003 which killed 35,000 people; increased
          intensity of hurricanes; increased flooding and drought; melting of
          the Arctic ice cap and the permafrost region; coral reefs
          dying, ... , are all believed to be symptomatic of global warming
          according to the scientists who study such things.

          What most people don't stop to realize is that petroleum oil
          combustion is required for virtually every mile a product gets
          shipped, and for virtually every mile a person travels by car, plane,
          boat and even train (via diesel engines).

          Transportation is therefore key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
          and since (motorized) transportation is the U.S.'s largest
          greenhouse gas emitting sector, and since the U.S. is the largest
          emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, it follows that if the
          world is to have any hope whatsoever of averting the tragedy of
          anthropogenic global warming, then the U.S. must begin dramatically
          reducing its total emissions from motorized transportation, as soon
          as theorectically possible.

          Mike Neuman
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConserveNOW/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.