Readers’ Responses to Our Question (87)

Tax and prosecute the 20% (industry) responsible for 80% of the problem (Pareto's law). Tax and prosecute those polluters out of business in a generalized and accelerated way. Do it now. Key is to mobilize the population, have it to stop the killing machine dead, and until the job of saving us all be well under way. This is more than war: it is survival. And it is global, universal. Concerns us all.

Set a fast-paced agenda to regulate car and factory emissions agressively, and actually enforce it as well to solve the problem as quickly as possible before it gets any worse. Bush has to follow up on his promises by reducing our dependence on oil (foreign or not), and spending much more money on alternative energy research. All of these methods are nothing new; they have been promised but have not been implemented effectively at all, and this issue needs to be one of the top ones on the list, especially after the whole Iraq debacle is over, so that the problem can be solved before it gets any worse. Obviously any overreaction would have more negative effects than positive (banning all non-hybrid cars, etc.) but the Bush administration needs to be more concerned about the future than it is right now.

Tomorrow the IPCC will begin publishing its new report on climate change. Theory becomes reality. You have asked for radical “direct action.” I offer this roadmap to the leaders of the world.

The Greenland Protocol

Preamble
The “Powers That Be” have the moral authority of the Kyoto Protocol as an exponent of how efficiently and intelligently the nations of the world came to their senses in agreement to do their part of the job in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions: to reduce 5 % of the CO2 emission levels of 1990 by 2012. Yet, they will have by that time increased more than 30%. The Kyoto protocol is quite an impressive diplomatic achievement, even considering that the commitment excludes the 40 % of emissions that the U.S., Australia, China and India generate. But nature is not doing its part. A new protocol is thus in order.

Imagine: We would bring together the most powerful men and women of our civilization. We would gather those who control all the 29,000 nuclear warheads, all the weapons of mass destruction and arsenals of conventional arms. We would bring holders of the mightiest political power, luminaries of world religions and headmen of sectarian terrorism, the controllers of big capital, of industrial and energy production systems, the most influential and widest heard leaders of consumers, unions and of media empires.

I bet that they would add up to no more than what a jumbo jet can hold. Let’s fly this amassment of human power to Greenland to negotiate with the Air to stop warming the Ice and Glaciers to stop melting, the Oceans to stop rising.

If nature is as reasonable as man – for the control of whom all this might has proven necessary – nature will surely listen, come to its senses, negotiate and strike a pragmatic compromise. The Greenland Protocol would be established. A way forward, a roadmap defined, and a just sharing of burdens between nature and humanity established. Humankind is, after all, the agreed upon crown of creation.

What a piece of work is Man – after all, this quintessence of intelligence and conscience among all the living, the biosphere, the Gaia. Nature would not be so stupid as not to listen, would it? Nature must, for heaven’s sake, understand that the burning of cheap fossil fuels and the beauty of the power in 29,000 nuclear warheads represents the apex of our human wisdom, not of stupidity.

An amendment to the Greenland Protocol will instigate the establishment of a generously endowed – $ 1 trillion – fund to help develop the competence and learning skills of natural systems to improve their adaptive capacity to human behaviour and to humanity’s visions of its future supremacy, security and preferred ways of life. Through this massive R & D program, nature will come under our control, be genetically disciplined and fully patented to be – for eternity – a reliable producer of ecological services.

The final, final solution. Sustainability achieved.

This is a problem which is known to every body and the solutions already in pipe line. However economics are the constraints for implementing any solution whole heartedly.

The radical solution is to go back in the past and use nature to provide us the comfort and luxury for the future.

Already wind energy is in use and large number of power plants are on order or on commissioning stage.

Hyddro power and other form of renewable energy projects are in progress.

We have to start curtailing hydro carbons for our energy need. The governments have to enforce regulations which can facilitate to reduce hydro carbon fuels usage in all countries.

Energy conservation is the essence of success. we should dream a world in 2100 where each and every house is fitted a solar cell on his roof top catching energy in day time and using it for night illumination as well as warming or air conditioning.

Use of one person one car is no more a possibility. public transport is effeciant and avilable with all luxuries running on solar power.

Industries using hydro or wind powers to keep their machines running.

The radical solution now i am recommending is that the rich countries should lift monoplising renewable energy technologies. And the technology and equipment should be manufactured each and every country keeping the prices slashed.

Assuming the information we've been seeing on Global Warming is correct, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, we're caught between the socially responsible approach and big business throughout the world.

Obviously, the biggest green house gas offenders are the industrialized countries. What is fueling their economies (pun intended) is causing the long term problem. With a company like Exxon/Mobil making a nearly 40 billion dollar profit last year and employing, directly or indirectly, hundreds of thousands of workers the economic impact to the world's markets must be taken into account as societies make changes to energy policies down the road.

Currently, it is cheaper to pollute then not to pollute. Short-sighted, but true at this point in time. The day will come when we'll be forced to clean up the problem, but as your question assumes this will be 5 generations from now.

As far as radical change I am opposed to it based on the effects it would have on the world's economy. That being said I believe we should aggressively promote alternative forms of energy through legislation that makes it worth the oil companies, the coal companies, the automakers and the factories to develop renewable cleaner burning sources of energy. If we don't go down this road the stock holders of corporations will continue to do what's in their best interests and not necessarily the interests of the planet. We saw this today in the Post article about Exxon/Mobil. The company was proud of the fact it is or will reinvest 5 billion of their profits to increasing production of fossil fuels. We should be going the other way. Exxon/Mobil should be using these profits to expand into alternative energy sources where they can also generate a sizeable profit and help clean up pollution at the same time. This will only happen if the industrialized nations make it an incentive. If we don't 40 billion a year buys a whole lot of influence in almost any capital in the world.

The world needs to get back to the basics, on everything.

SPRAWL. The demand for cars is fed by people's continuous exodus to suburbia. So are those permanent road works and those huge traffic jams that keep people stuck while engines keep polluting. Walkable cities wanted!!! with massive transit systems, ample walking zones and bike roads. One hundred years from now, either car commuting is history or human kind is history. Or both.

DEFORESTATION. Rain forests are disappearing, fast. All sorts of perverse incentives exist in third-world countries. Timber companies are seldom allowed to own land, so they don't have any forests to manage; pieces of forests are commonly given to small farmers, who first need to clear the forest in order to start some tiny agricultural enterprise; in those poverty-ridden places, cutting and selling trees at least give farmers some income, which agriculture doesn't.

POLLUTION. Do you complain about air quality in Philadelphia? Try Mexico City, Santiago, Quito. Same problem: cars. Same solutions: discourage car use, encourage mass transit ridership.

Simply said, 100 years from now I see 2 possibilities:

- there are as many humans as today
- there are much less

If we want to have as many humans as today and those humans all living under comparable standards of living - those are BIG ifs - then there is now choice but to dramatically reduce our use of energy in our industrialized worlds: something like by a factor of 5 or 10.

Fortunately, we have some time: let's say 20 to 30 years.

So the most radical I can think of is to start every-where to reduce energy consumption, and exploring all imaginable sources of energy (for that we can't reduce). There will be no savior, no technological breakthrough, no nothing that will help us.

- The first step would be to make people interested in the problem, and the best for that would be to increase, slowly but steadily, taxes on fossil energies (oil, gas, ...)

- A second and easy step would be to make public transportation free, paid-for by the taxes on gasoline. Also, provide free bicycles in all towns.

- A third and more long-term step would be to fund research programs in all aspects - urbanism, bio-mass, waves-, wind- and geothermal energy - that could potentially reduce our use of energy.

Failing that, the second scenario (much less humans than today) will become the most likely. I have 2 little kids, I don't wish them this future.

Radical: Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.

Radical does not have to be hard or expensive.
1) Drive less (emit less emissions).
2) Buy hybrids (demand driven increase of better mileage cars - if the public demands them, automakers will produce more and spend more trying to be more fuel efficient/developing new technologies).
3) Turn your home temp down 2 or 3 degrees, turn the TV/computer and lights off when you leave a room, etc (use less fuel, create less emissions).
4) Get over NIMBYism. Everybody is for wind power - unless of course you are a certain famous family living in Cape Cod and your view of the ocean will be "spoiled" by distant windmills. They, like everyone else, will need to adapt to progress (be it windmills, dams, solar panels...) Accept it and move on.

The major problem with this solution is that the price of oil will fall (with the decreased demand). So consumers are going to have to "value" conservationism more than convenience (buy the hybrid even if gas prices are at historic lows). That is going to take something really radical - like a change of heart for mankind. Its really easy to say "the government should do more" and even easier to blame it when things don't improve. But the "government" cares a lot less than we do as individuals. Relying on governements to solve this problem (through taxation, regulation or legislation) will only lead to unintended consequences, less innovation and a lot less money in everyone's pocket.

The greatest proportion of fossil fuel pollution is from power generation. The media focus on cars is okay, but takes the heat off the power industry's need to stop burning fossil fuels in power generation plants asap. The coal industry's lobby about so-called "clean" coal is a disservice to the country and the media should expose it for what it is. We need to bite the bullet and set a hard date for stopping all use of coal and oil for power plants. Europe's got it right, and even China's on the right track with new reactors.

It seems to me we are in a situation where the old adage "too little, too late" is coming into play. It's not like we carry out many of the proposals already proposed and reduce carbon emissions and somehow global warming will suddenly reverse and the future will be rosy (though all those proposals are good and should be carried out, if possible). Carbon, and its effects, are already in play and carbon will not disappear so easily. What we emit today will be around for way more than a generation. Extrapolating how much we are spewing out today and the economic realities we live in, it seems unlikely we can dramatically change what is going on within this century.

Unfortunately, the geologic record shows that there is one solution to global warming and that is global cooling and it will happen no matter what we do. In my opinion we have passed a tipping point on global warming. Feeback effects are happening all over the place and our fall over the cliff cannot be reversed.

Hence, it seems to me we should start seriously looking at what kinds of steps we can take to survive in a world where global warming will most probably be followed by dramatic cooling in many parts of the northern latitudes. I leave it to others to speculate on what those steps can be but I can only say that nature is way more powerful than man and will take whatever steps come naturally to maintain and return to balance. Within that reality man is merely another organism which will either die or live as millions of others have done in eons past.

I think it will eventually be proven that manmade C02 is a very minor, possibly insignificant factor, and that even if we could control it, it would have no discernable impact on the climate. The reality is that climate is dynamic, chaotic, and cyclic system, the metrics of which are very poorly quantifiable and modeled. The climate models will be found to contain more fudge factors than fudge itself.

"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-US President Lyndon B. Johnson
February 1965

That special message to the US Congress was delivered 42-years ago this month. Where will the planet be 42-years from now?

For two decades as a planning & development consultant I have advised governments at state and local levels that global warming and climate change are among the most important problems facing their communities and citizens. As an editorial writer for a local newspaper I wrote extensively about the danger to coastal communities. National progress in addressing the issue begun during previous administrations came to a virtual halt when the present administration came to power. That do-nothing attitude in Congress and the White house also affected local thinking.

Perhaps the new IPCC report will change that. But the past 42-years are not encouranging. We are rapidly approaching the point of no return. The profligate burning of fossil fuels must be radically changed. Peak oil may be the precursor to peak humankind - a not unlikely prospect now that demographers have calculated that there are now more living human beings than all of the dead over the thousands of years of civilization. Mankind may have become the kind of pestilence that nature overcomes in its own way.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling? Isn't it true that many of today's global warming alarmists are the same scientists that hypothesized in the 1970's that extreme global COOLING would threaten all of mankind?

Repeat a hypothesis loud enough as many times as possible, and it suddenly becomes 'fact'.

IF NOTHING IS DONE SOON, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

Wait a minute, we're all going to die anyway...

Never mind.

One topic that hasn't been brought up to much is 'trees'. Its not only the crap that we spit out into the air, but also the reasons why CO2 has been building up. Remember that trees take in our crap, as part of their natural process. They 'inhale' CO2. The last 20 years have seen a boom in the loss of tree cover. (madagascar, borneo, bhutan, amazon!, s. america, far east russia and china, and India) We need to have an equilibrium in tree loss vs tree planting. Urban sprawl in the US is a great example. City legislation should not evolve a city as quickly as Phoenix or LasVegas did. Completely unsustainable. America will be the first country to implode because of our gluttonous and wreckless lifestyle.

I have real issues with the theories concerning global warming, but I can stand the doomsday predictions that seem endless. This year was supposed to be a record hurricane season for the Atlantic, based mostly on last year's abnormal activity. What happened? Activity was far below normal. Earth's climate is cyclical, and while we may be affecting it, I'm not going to use fear to sway public opinion.

We should be smart enough now to understand that the environment deserves our respect. I am far more concerned with the way that our pollution and fishing fleets are destroying the oceans than I am with global warming that may or may not be occuring. Humanity needs to realize that the earth is supporting more than just ourselves, and if we don't work hard to reduce our impact on all facets of the environment, it is not the earth that is going to suffer, it is us.

Nowhere in the comments are the main sources of pollution:people and more people. People pollute by their mere existence (every human generates 1/2 liter of methane a day)cooking the food they eat, coming and going (in cars or public transportation)keeping their houses cold or warm. We need to institute severe population controls, aiming to reduce world's population by 90% and then allow nature to recover itself.

I think 100 years from now it is likely that the conflict in Iraq will be looked at as a minor incident, maybe one of a number of oil wars of the the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Global warming though will be a big deal as literally 100s of millions, if not billions, of people will be displaced.
It seems to me that we need to address the issue now, but our government seems unable to take action except in crises and this is not yet universally perceived to be a crisis. It is certainly not perceived by Bush as a looming crisis or a gathering threat even though it very much is. So, I am very pessimistic.
If I had a choice, I would push for billions of dollars in alternative energy research. I would also create incentives for nuclear power plants. The thing is, GM knows how to make an entirely, or almost entirely, electric car. So with enough electricity, we could elminate the use of home heating oil, coal, and most gasoline. I think we could do it in 20 years if the Congress or the President committed to it, but they won't. We could address global warming and help ourselves in our dealings with the middle east. If we didn't need their oil and if they weren't rich from selling us oil, many of the current difficulties would vanish. Unfotunately, money talks in our society and the oil industry is not going to just go away for the good of the country.
On the other side, many environmentalists will oppose nuclear power plants, but the world would almost certainly be better off with areas contaminated with radioactive material than a vastly warmer world everywhere and a dramatic rise in sea level everywhere. It is clearly the lesser of the two evils.

Sever immediately the corporate-govt connection, it is certain disaster. Each solution presented by the big boys favors the big boys, ie, reactors, hydrogen, ethanol. liquified coal, on and on. Carter pointed the way 30 years ago with energy efficient housing, solar, wind, and conservation encouragements, each effective and do-able right now. I sincerely believe the validity of every suggested solution to the myriad emergencies facing us now rests in "following the dollar". Look to smaller less centralized entrepreneurs who haven't the money to control national policy. Agressive deployment of proven technologies involving photovoltaics and wind, coupled with developing technologies such as battery and capacitor powered vehicles, energy efficient housing, should now be the first concern of policy makers.

There is no reason the power grid cannot be reduced to the role of backup and redistribution of electricity, petroleum-powered vehicles used mainly for goods and mass transit, no GOOD reason.
Our friends in the Middle East should/would be sending belly dancers bearing baskets of ripe figs to congress for future oil contracts, a kind of political influence to make us smile instead of grinding our teeth.

It is the rule of money for the sake of getting more that has put us in this quagmire, a mess wider than energy and warming. It is simple to the point of being a parabel, Let us be ruled by reason rather than greed. If there exists a root to all evil then its flowering plant must be the spreading of the "Something for Nothing" ethic.

global warming requires no action. check out patrick michaels piece at cato.org his data will provide greateer perspective on the issue. also, people should be aware of bjorn lomberg. he was the greatest proponent of stopping global warming in its tracks until he examined his critics data and found that they were right. scientists need to continue to rant and rave about global warming in order to secure grants from the government and universities for their studies. it's how they get paid. the data they present is biased. the same with the media. the media needs the hype of global warming to sell advertisements and get ratings. if the data is studied impartially the conclusion is clear. global warming does not require any drastic action. in the decades to come new technologies of the free market will lower fossil fuel emissions and this subject will be moot.

Folks...check out the historical ebb and flow of global temps and CO2 levels.

While reducing CO2 emmissions and working to eliminate our carbon use are good things, the GW hysteria is just that. Man's impact is very minor, if at all. We saw gloom and doom predictions based on the coming ice age that the NAS predicted in 1976 and they were worng. Perhaps the science is better now...but considering the BIG picture when we look at the entire record of the earth...this is but a small blip of activity.

well, we could start producing the howard johnson or edwin gray motors.(both "free energy") we could produce hydrogen on demand as HHO, also available currently. We could get cobasys (chevron)to permit 95 ah NiMh batteries to be made as panasonic(sony) was making, before the lawsuit. and have electric cars, such as the EV1, which was made by GM 10 years ago. could get daimler chrysler to produce the "fish" minivan concept they showed at the autoshow 2 years ago. that was a 80 mpg diesel. Ultimately we could do many things, if only the oil cartel didn't own our politicians.

i have invented gas-saving,paper-saving green environement on web community

1.permaID.com will register you with your SSN+fingerprint+retina+DL
2.you log-in with your fingerprint or retina
3.you blog/chat with your own ID

4.pay 2 use :priority email system

5.virtual shopping now is possible,via
physical-address-biz-name@permaID.com's webpage/webTV
6.human email-microchip/email-tattoo will log-in any airport, HOMELAND SECURITY GOT SIMPLE!
7.YOU CAN MAKE $$ BY EMAIL -CONSULT,==> save gas!
work at home, get errands done virtually!

its patent filed 1-30-07 USPTO.gov
by dr noh
san francisco
usa
415-675-1773 webphone

Hey,

Is anybody out there?

I'm the real culprit of global warming and nobody seems to notice!!!!

Sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is part of the problem; but I'm the real deal, trapping far more heat than the measly CO2.

If you want to slow or stop global warming, try to get a handle of me instead of trying to deal with a lesser evil.

Duhhh!

IF.....Global warming is a fact of life there will be winners and losers.... The winners will be the ones that adapt to the changes .... the losers will be the ones that hysterically run around crying Global warming is here ..... Global warming would cause mankind to rethink the direction we are traveling in.... I think that direction needs to be altered and that change will only come about if there is no choice ... If areas like the Middle East are disadvantaged due to climate change then I say thank you for global warming.... ditto for population controls .... we will slow or stop the population explosion when nature gives us no other alternitive .... Ask yourself who stands to profit from a "band aid" approach to addressing global warming and odds are it's the same people who are crying .. the sky is falling.

The almighty dollar is going to ruin us all. Instead of using our minds to be one with the earth we are a cancer that is causing a quick death for our host. Quick because the earth has been a healthy living planet for millions of years, and since the industrial revolution, merely a span of 200 years, we have managed to pollute every facet of our environment. Who takes out the trash? What a bunch of needless/senseless/non-biodegradeable crap. C'mon you Harvard grads, use those pricey brains for good instead of evil. And politicians...I already spoke of you when I mentioned what was in my trash bag. Is it possible to make a better tomorrow. I am already ashamed of what my daughter will think of my generation when she's grown.

DO Nothing; Global Warming is not happening!
In 1984 while living in New Jersey it was stated in the media that global warming was starting and the east coast ocean levels would rise about 3 feet within 20 years. 2004 came and it didn't happen. Remember in 1975 when the media said we were heading for global cooling. The Lord spoke in a prophecy about 3 years ago and said that the weather patterns were changing. I'll believe our God.

Our problem is not to halt global warming, but to survive it: Global warming results from, among other things, excessive production of greenhouse gases, but the fact is that we have already over-produced these gases. Earth's CO2 level is already 30% higher than at any time in the past 800K years, so even if we completely halt human production of CO2, global warming will continue into the next century. This means that Kyoto and most current proposals are too late. We need to ask how much of our culture and species we can preserve into the 22nd century.

Hydrogen vehicles are in the step in the right direction, but there is no infrastructure in place to motivate the auto industry to produce such vehicles.
I propose that the government step in order to set mandates on requiring all gasoline stations requiring one hydrogen pump by 2011. The costs can be lessening by tax breaks. In addition, the Federal government should mandate that the auto industry produce hydrogen vehicles by 2011 then mandate the discontinuance of gasoline vehicles by 2020.

Invest a few billion in hydrogen storage research and increase incentives to install wind farms. Storage of wind energy in liquid H2 tanks underground is the easy answer. In 10 years, 90% of all energy use could be on wind, nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric. Hydrogen cars are a dead-end for much of the world as it is just too cold for them in the winter (they make icy roads with the water vapor - oops) so go battery/fuel cell hybrids - yes you read that right.
YES global warming is real - DUH. Those who say scientists have predicted cooling, need to realize that those scientist are in the minority, and MOST predicted exactly what is happening, and very accurately. It is mind-blowingly stupid that we should spend hundreds of billions on fixing a problem that could easily be prevented with a couple of billion in the right direction, but most politicians have the science and tech IQ of a dead squirrel.

I think to eliminate Corporate influence on what we should do is the first step. A lot of companies stand to lose billions in the face of reducing pollution and carbon monoxide. Once that has been done, then and only then can we truly become earth friendly and start to work with making our planet safe for all future generations.

There should be a way to transport the fresh water from the melting glaciers to areas of the world (e.g. central Africa) where they are in dire need of drinking water.

The "global warming deniers" -- those who deny that humans play a significant role in global warming -- share one important trait with Holocaust Deniers:

Their motives for denying these realities are absolutely, purely, and solely socio-political. They live in a 100% politicized world in which *absolutely everything*, *bar nothing* is weighed for its potential for political gain or danger of political loss -- and they decide the truth or falsity of claims on these criteria alone.

Nothing else matters to these people.

This bunk theory doesn't exist. Settle down, wait for the next media driven, environmental bonanza. Just wait. It's coming.

Remember the 1970's "global cooling"
Remember the 1980's "acid rain"
Remember the 1990's "ozone hole"
Now we have this new century replete with "avian bird flu, SARS, man-made global warming, with a tinture of Mad Cow Disease and the occasional shark attack."

Folks, man made greenhouse gases account for what, 2-5% of all emissions into the atmosphere....and this is the cause? Volcanoes have released more gas in one eruption than every SUV, factory, and cow dump combined.

The earth may be warming, but no man, no group, no NGO, no association, no government can do anything to change the tide. Sorry.

I challenge anyone to name me three facts, just THREE, in opposition to MAN-MADE global warming. Do the research yourselves. Don't let people spoonfeed you garbage about this issue. This suggestion is for your own good. This will be the most productive hour of your week if you've never ventured down this path.

Do the research on the trends, study the graphs yourself, find and read from the brilliant PHd's, NASA employees, and heads of state who see this issue for what it is: the greatest epitome of a hoax mankind has seen in a long time, if ever.

I'm melting, i'm meltinnnnnnnnnnng......

Two simple suggestions:

Have fewer offspring and provide better education for them.

It seems strange to me that with respect to society, in some ways it is easier to have baby than to get a driver's license.

the problem is over population!!! 2.5 billion in 1950 is now 6.5 (if not 7 billion) the world must adopt the same policy as China encourage if not actually mandate a one child policy..how can America even hope to have any effect on this debate with our porous borders and the fact that nearly 40% of all children born in the U.S. are illegitimate...500 million in America before the end of this century...it won't be pretty...Australia anyone

I believe global warming is the largest elephant in our society {being North American]. The cost of fighting this beast is well analysed in the Stern Report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_10_06_exec_sum.pdf The cost is not too excessive as part of the world's GDP.

I believe that the harshest price will have to be paid by North America [Canada/USA] for we are the epitome of suburbia/commuting/lack of public transport. Moreover, we consume far more [often unnecessary items] than the rest of the world on avarage.

The solutions:
1., Switch to nuclear power for electricity generation [and continue research on other alternatives, which may be economical in longer term].
2., Revise city planning for more compact and more energy efficient solutions -- end of suburbia/detached homes
3., greatly increase public transport
4., increase rail traffic at the expense of truck traffic, lower cost, less polution.
5., Heavy tax on gas/diesel guzzling cars:Dodge Viper, Hummies, Motorhomes, status symbol 4x4-s pick-ups and vans, except those needed for tradesman, delivery, farm etc.
6., Refrain from taxing fuel until such time as public transport close to affordable housing is common, for fuel taxation under the present regime is a very regressive form, mostly unmanagable by the working poor.
5., Greatly raise requirement of average fleet milage for cars, and a different one for trucks/vans/working equipment.
6., Increase the use of diesel fuel, as it is more efficient than gas.
7., Increasae the use of waste industrial heat for use in housing - where possible. Plant lot of trees in residential areas, for they act as protection against wind and sun-shine in summer. [cuts requisite of A/C.]
6., Cut down on use of oil/gas derivatives where possible [excessive packaging, unnecessary life-style products, lawn beautification, etc.]
7 ACCEPT THAT YOUR LIFE WILL BE GREATLY INFLUENSED BY GLOBAL WARMING - and do all planning to reduce the effect of such on yourself and your neighbour, for we are all passengers on SPACESHIP EARTH, your wastage of goods effects all others [a la Lorenz' notes on the butterfly flapping its wings reflected somewhere else by thunderstorms]
Aside from above good luck

Worrying about this is a waste of time.

If global warming is, indeed, human-caused, there are 2.5 billion people in China & India who, I am sure, will not volunteer to stay poor to keep the planet a degree cooler in the year 2100. The Chinese coal miner, Shenhua, is the third largest in the world and does not export even a pound. Windmills will not suffice.

If global warming is a rebound from the extraordinary cold period from 1320-1900, or some other natural climate variation, greenhouse gases are probably a small addition.

If theories about climate change are right, people a hundred years from now will be enraged we haven't done much to reduce carbon emissions. So, getting radical, what direct action should we take?

I prefer to answer this question in a way no doubt no one else will--and because everyone else has many sensible answers (though why they seem so difficult to move from dream to reality is a good question).

I prefer to answer this question by saying that lots of time and money should be spent locating the most gifted members of society and putting them in place for a variety of measures and inventions. Furthermore the science of genetics must get in place to gradually phase out the human beings we are for a model with I.Q.'s 200+. I posit this high I.Q. number because if it were any lower, if I were to say we should have only I.Q.'s of 120 and above, people will no doubt say that I am selecting for people such as myself and that I am being selfish and a fascist or something.

Therefore I say we should all have the integrity and honesty and capacity of self-sacrifice to recognize that we seem incapable of responsibly handling the technology we now have let alone the intelligence to invent a way we can continue being the irresponsible human beings we are now with technology. So many measures of overcoming our problems seem nothing more than locating a few gifted people to solve the problems so we can continue our life of ease--as if we are not the problem...

None of the technology which has ever existed has been a problem--except insofar as it is we ourselves in all our stupidity which has been handling it...

I ask for an honest look at ourselves, and quite frankly it seems strange to me to base actions on whether scientists are right or wrong about the climate. What if we are not causing the current climate change and it is only a matter of cycles over the centuries science has not pinned down yet? That seems irrelevant to me. We should have the strength and intelligence to act to clean up the climate (raise and lower temperature at will? Cause pollution or remove all pollutants at will?) whether we are doing harm to it or not.

I find this question answered by virtually everyone in bad faith--no matter how sensible the answers--because there is no overarching ideal, no true imaginative aspiration toward what man can become. In fact virtually every aspect of society has something of a truncated appearance, a constricting of view, as if such an such a problem, such an such a field, such an such an institution can only be approached in certain ways.

It makes little difference if I am being absurd here, the point is to look over the problem in total then focus on what needs to be done. Obviously we are incapable of even looking over the problem because all our answers seem to focus on technological answers (though without even basic respect for the only people that can solve such problems, namely the gifted) or on slight behavior modifications and never once does it come up that we ourselves just might be...not worth a damn as men.

But how can we be worth anything when we destroy the climate of an entire planet (not to mention the only planet we really have access to)?

I see the only real answer to be a self-sacrifice of ourselves toward the only human beings that can save us--that are in fact our future, supposing one believes in evolution at all: people quite simply more intelligent and creative in action than us. Not to recognize this is to really not engage problems at all.

I'm a meteorologist, and I believe that a geologic catastrophe is a far greater concern than climatic change. Climate change can be adapted to in time, but a very large volcanic eruption will result in rapid extinction. The most rapid climate changes in geologic history have been caused by large volcanic eruptions.

Here are the 10 solutions to global warming, peak oil, energy security, and traffic congestion:

1. An immediate and permanent moratorium on all new major road construction and expansions. (Every additional dollar spent building and widening roads digs us deeper into our dangerous oil / auto addiction, and increases global warming)

2. An immediate and permanent moratorium on all new airport construction and expansions, as well as an end to all aviation subsidies. In addition, an end to oil industry subsidies.

3. A huge increase in funding for Amtrak, and the rapid construction of a new nationwide train network. This should connect every city, town, and neighborhood with an efficient, state-of-the-art electric train network comparable to what is currently operating all across Europe and Japan. This should be built to transport both passengers and all the cargo now moved by very inefficient trucks. Trains are by far the most energy efficient form of transportation that greatly reduces global warming, saves lives, and encourages compact, walkable communities.

4. The rapid tripling of minimum vehicle miles per gallon standards for all vehicles produced in America - accomplished by a quick and complete conversion of all automobile manufacturing facilities to the building of only hybrid, solar, and fully electric vehicles.

Government car purchases made each year should be switched to buying only hybrids and fully electric cars. It is estimated that the entire U.S. government purchases well over one million new vehicles each year - the sum total of Federal, State, & Local Government agencies, municipalities, counties, highway patrol, sheriff, police and fire departments, etc.
The real solution is to eventually stop making cars altogether by a phased retooling of the auto industry into manufacturing trains (much like during the second world war when they switched to building military equipment).

5. An immediate moratorium on the building of any additional sprawl. Sprawl is probably the single largest contributor to oil addiction and global warming due to it's very design (or lack of). Sprawl forces everyone to drive many miles daily for everything, which in turn requires constant road expansions, encouraging more cars and driving, and more sprawl. Its a vicious cycle consuming ever more oil, and spewing out more pollution, making global warming continually worse.

6. A major focus of federal, state, and local governments on New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development - the revitalization and densification of all existing cities and towns across America into walkable, mixed-use communities, with pedestrians and bicycles given top priority over automobiles, and a serious focus on bicycles and trains as the major forms of transportation. Included would be millions of affordable housing units and high quality neighborhood schools located so all children can walk or bike to them.

7. An immediate moratorium on the construction of any new coal fired or nuclear power generating plants. Contrary to what some are saying - that nuclear is a "clean energy" solution to global warming - nuclear power is far from clean. The waste it produces is the most toxic substance known to humankind, remaining deadly radioactive for many thousands of years, and no safe way to store or dispose of it.

8. The rapid construction of massive new solar and wind power generating capacity all across America, from large-scale installations to smaller neighborhood and roof-top units. Also, the immediate installation of new hydropower generating capacity in the form of coastal wave and tidal energy capture.

9. The rapid installation of full roof solar panels on every building in America.

10. The rapid installation of major organic farms at the edge of every city and town across America. In addition to this, the rapid planting of millions of trees across America.

WAYS TO PAY FOR THESE SOLUTIONS

-The $400 billion + spent so far on the Iraq war could have paid for a lot of this (experts
predict this war will end up costing over $1 trillion)
-A portion of the $430 billion United States annual defense budget
-The hundreds of billions spent annually on road construction
-The hundreds of billions currently spent on airport expansions
-The hundreds of billions spent on constructing nuclear and coal fired power plants
-The $300 billion each year spent subsidizing the oil industry
-A new 'waste tax' imposed on waste and inefficiency

There is no single silver bullet, no magic answer; but an earth-friendly mix of solutions, or cocktail, can go a long way toward solving the problem of global warming.

One solution: biofuels. In developing nations, ethanol makes a great deal of sense. In the United States, biodiesel makes more sense, (a) because the infrastructure is available for biodiesel use in vehicles and heating oil, and (b) because biodiesel can use a wide variety of natural oils, or feedstocks, including pure and waste vegetable oils and rendered animal fat.

Biodiesel is envioronmentally friendly--today's processing systems are for the most part waterless or produce clean water that can be flushed down any municipal or rural sewer system--and economically sound.

In short, increased production and use of biodiesel can contribute significantly toward solving the most pressing problem of our age.

-Jonathan Braun, Senior Vice President
Hampton Biofuels, Inc.
http://www.hamptonbiofuels.com

To PG

There are two contributions to global warming. We are currently in an interglacial period of global climate, that is, a period of relatively warm conditions when glaciers retreat. The second contribution comes from the effect of greenhouse gases produced from cars, power plants, farm animals (20% according to the New York Times) etc., and is a man made phenomenon.

You cannot discount the scientific evidence behind the man-caused global warming that we are experiencing today, but forecasting the long term affects of global warming is speculative since the contribution from the earth's natural climate cycle is unknown and can fluctuate over short periods of time. The goal should be, however, to reduce man-made gases that contribute to global warming.

Today, our first priority should be energy independence, and that includes drilling for oil at ANWR and other locations, developing our oil shale resources (if economically viable), nuclear power, wind generated power, geothermal power, and hydroelectric power. Standard gas mileages for vehicles should be increased and that includes SUVs. Energy independence can be helpful for reducing emissions if alternative sources are emphasized.

Long term goals should include the elimination of gas powered vehicles, and the elimination of our dependence on fossil fuels to generate electricity. Kyoto should be signed and ratified by Congress if it also applies to developing countries such as China and India.

PK: I agree with you totally, but to get this to happen would be like trying to pull a train with a tricycle.

PK's top 10 list is definitely radical! The main issue i see is that the cost to each person/taxpayer in this country would be enormous. Implementing your suggestions would raise federal taxes, state taxes, housing prices, ground transportation prices, air transporatation prices, prices on goods moved by ground and air transportation (prices on everything!), heating/cooling prices, etc. Perceived savings that would go to funding all of this would also need to go to the increased number of poor people who would not be able to afford getting to work, buying food, etc as well as unemployment which would skyrocket. The main item missing from your list, but needed to implement over half of the items, is a moratorium on population growth - which has been suggested on other posts. Some seem to think that that is the magic bullet (and maybe it is) but it brings problems with it (like funding social security and other pay as you go social programs, increased health costs since society would be older, etc).

Most posts seem to still be looking towards the government to "fix the problem". I still say we need to look inward and make more environmentally friendly choices. Buy smaller houses. Turn off the lights. Get new windows. Turn down the heat/AC. Instead of worrying about CAFE, start buying hybrids and stop buying Hummers. Car makers will supply what you demand. The American consumer apparently has wanted big cars with lots of power and has not valued or wanted cars based on fuel efficiency. We may say in polls that we do, but when we go and buy a car, we do not put our money where our mouth is. That's the auto makers or governments fault? No, that's on us.

Public transportation? Its part of the solution but not the only solution. Public transportation in the DC area is some of the best in the country. But its currently running close to max capacity. We have HOV lanes and have not really built new highways or done a lot of expansion/widening in 25 years. And DC traffic is 2nd worst in the nation. How is this possible? Sprawl. Or in laymans terms, afforable housing. Being able to afford a house/condo/apartment in or near the city is challenging at best. So what choice do people have? Buy something in the burbs. Its a nifty idea to have Transit Oriented development but people need to work where the jobs are. Change jobs? I guess you move! My suggestion is to build (a lot) more non-HOV roads, widen existing ones with non-HOV lanes and add public transit capacity. No statistics to back this up but the amount of pollution caused from time spent in backups has got to be huge.

Dave:

Before talking about the cost of reducing the effect of global warming, you should read the STERN REVIEW, you will find that the cost of the measures can be covered by the price of the IRaq war [or a little more] which adds up to approx 1-2% of the GDP [considearbly less than your DEFENCE budget excluding the WAR ON TERROR [a.k.a spin doctoring, for you can not have a war on terror] http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmror]

The website is on the Treasury of the UK.

Considering the individualism and selfishness of the politicians managing the destinies of the world countries, the right measures to correct the problelms of the reduction of carbon dioxyde will never be solved. Paris just hosted a world conference on the matter, and the dangers of not solving the warming of our world has been highlighted by an alarming report from experts. As usual, at the end of the conference - remember Kyoto - the right declarations were made, but the follow up is yet to be seen. Each country realizes the dangers, but the immediate consequences - economically, politically or otherwise - which the right measures would create, will postpone the decisions which need to be taken urgently.
In fact, the world is faced with a number of problems resulting from the world politicians' reluctance to take long term views and act accordingly. They prefer to work day to day, in order to protect their reelection, and postpone the important decisions - as the french saying goes 'Après moi le déluge'!
The only solution would be to have all the countries of the world decide to meet on a specific agenda establishing ALL THE PROBLEMS of our planet - carbon dioxyde is one of them - and with the decison to call off the meeting only when unanimous decisions will have been taken on all the urgent matters, to be implemented without delay. This may seem to be a utopy, but otherwise, we have to be realistic, there will be talk, talk, talk and talk and the problems will only continue to degenerate, to the detriment of the future generations.

Since carbon dioxide represents 76% of the total greenhouse gases emitted it is getting most of the headlines as a cause for global warming. I have seen reports that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million to 380 ppm in the last 200 years. That is an increase of 35.7%. (Other reports indicate closer to a 31% increase.) A common breakdown of where man-made carbon dioxide is produced is: 33% by power plants; 33% by factories and home heating systems; 22% by cars and trucks; and 12% by major transportation. Therefore, global warming advocates, including scientists and politicians, are channeling their efforts to greatly reduce carbon dioxide emission from these producers. That all sounds great! Except there is one huge flaw in their argument. We humans inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide each time we breathe. So every couple of seconds we deplete the atmosphere of oxygen and replace it with an equal amount of carbon dioxide. The world's population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 6.5 billion today. That is a 650% increase. And half of that increase has occurred in just the past 40 years. Power plants, factories, home heating systems, cars, trucks and major transportion all emit carbon dioxide, but they don't also deplete the oxygen like we do with every breath. It would appear that at the current rate of growth of the world's population, that at some point in the future, even if the carbon dioxide emissions from all power plants, all home heating systems, all cars, trucks and all major transportion were eliminated, we would still have a problem with a high concentration of carbon dioxide.

James Danley

Withouit doubt high population and the desire of population for higher standard of living is part of the problem. However, the population of the world has almost quit growing in relation to 1970 or so.:
1.,First time in history a nation's population has fallen entirely due to low fertility rate: Japan in 2006.
2., All of Europe/Russia has fertility rate well below replacement for over 40 years - without immigration it will follow Japan.
3., USA has negative growth without the illigal immigrants {USA Census Bureau 2007 data]
4., China's policy of ONE CHILD PER COUPLE [affecting over 80% of population for over 10 years indicates that her population will effectively halve in 50-60 years --- a loss of 600 million or more.
5., As living standards rise, fertility rate will drop in India, the second most populous nation on Earth; and in other nations [not even counting on probable limiting factores of GLOBAL WARMING].

So the solution of the GLOBAL WARMING will depend on equitable distribution of goods among the citizens on SPACESHIP EARTH, with drop in living standards for some, and a rise for others. The total population will not get to those numbers foreseen in 1970-80, but will propably peak in 50 years or so before starting long term deline [SANS WARS, PANDEMICS AIDS, etc]

I come from India where the government is supporting a massive drive, to reduce carbon emission. A new ministry with a complete administrative set up (it is called the ministry of renewable energy sources) has been formed to ensure promotion of renewable energy -- which comprises of solar energy, energy produced from biomass and from wind. Several organisations and individuals have also made a lot of money under "carbon credit" scheme of the United Nations (under the Kyoto protocol).
As a journalist, I have observed that such schemes basically fail at the grass root level. Solar pannels meant for distribution among problem used to land up inthe houses of local leaders. I am sure the same would not be true about the strongest democracy in the world -- which plans to reduce it's energy consumption by 20 percent by 2010. But then the steps taken to achieve this goal must be pragmatic enough. A study had earlier pointed out that the money required for the USA to shift from the the usage of carbon-dioxide emmitting fuels to hydrogen fuel would be the same as that required by the US as that for its Apollo mission to the Moon.
The benefits, of countries shifting to cleaner fuels seem to be quite goood in number.
There are some practical steps that can be immediately taken. The new fluorescent bulb used upto 80 percent less energy. There are reports that some practical steps like using proper bulbs, proper insulation of buildings, promoting usage of solar pannels and usage of better household appliances alone can help reduce energy consumption alone can reduce energy consumption by 36 percent.
Sample this : A solar electric system requires 100 square feet of area to produce 1 kw of energy. A Kilowatt, to mention, can meet the demands of an average household. We enough square feet above our heads to generate millions of KWs of energy. We just need those solar pannels!
I hope governments of the world understand this. Are you listening Governments?

Shashank Shekhar (Doha)
"We just need those solar pannels!
I hope governments of the world understand this. Are you listening Governments?"
So i am assuming that you do not have the solar panels on the roof of your place. Why not? Go buy them (you can get them online even!), convert your electrical source and help the environment. Why are you asking or waiting for the government to do this? Have you replaced your bulbs, appliances, windows and insulation? Or is everyone waiting on the governement for those things too? If people really care about the environment, they will take things into their own hands and not wait on governments to do it for them. But then, when things don't get done, it's a lot nicer to be able to blame the goverment than ourselves.

Does anyone see the strange coincidence that global warming because of green-house effect by human emitted CO2 comes at the same time as peak-oil ?

Well, I'm working in astrophysics, and there is a very coherent explanation for that: some billion years ago our Earth's atmosphere had no oxygen and lots of CO2, and was much warmer than today, because of the green-house effect. There is a rather easy calculation, based on W/m2 received from our Sun, Earth surface, black-body radiation, albedo, and some more. 2nd grade physics university.

Then, when life appeared, and especially life on dry earth (around 300 to 400 million years ago) plants fixed that CO2 and turned it to oxygen (O2) and bio-mass through photosyntesys (you know, the chlorophylla). That bio-mass later was to become fossil hydrocarbons.

So now, basically, we're putting back into the atmosphere what had been fixed by plants some hundreds of million years ago. But while it took some hundreds of million years to be fixed, we're burning it in some few years.

That's no magic.

And there is no solution except to stop using fossil hydrocarbons. ASAP.

Somalia: Yemenis Tough approach towards smugglers
http://www.geeskaafrika.com/igad2020_02feb07.htm

Djibouti (HAN) February 03, 2007 - It is not clear whether the tough approach of the Yemeni authorities towards smugglers’ boats will lead to a decrease of people coming to Yemen. Since the tragedy of 28 December weeks passed without any boats arriving off the coast of Yemen

http://www.geeskaafrika.com/somaliland_01feb07.htm

For the last two weeks, a number of trucks transporting legitimate and taxed goods to the Somali State of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia have been terrorized, ambushed, robbed, and burnt by the Al-Itihad/ONLF terrorists operating in the Somali zone state. As a result of this terrorism, Somaliland traders have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property, and millions of dollars worth of trade and taxes between the two neighboring states (Ethiopia and Somaliland).

Children all over the world are beginning to be educated about conservation, the environment, pollution, and global warming from the burning of fossil fuels except in America of all places. "An Inconvenient Truth" is being banned from showing in public schools as even an after school project. Plus, this stupid idea of creationism as stating the earth is only s few thousand years old and global warming is not in the 'bible', etc. The spreading of the idea that global warming is a myth and a conspiracy should indicate the overwhelming need for education here. My daughter came home from school and told me that God would not let global warming happen and how could it be real when there is a big blizzard in Colorado. When I explained it to her she went to school and was made fun of by peers about being stupid. America really needs unbiased education about global warming yet a child won't presently get it till he becomes an adult who has the freedom to reject misinformation. I would like to see a flood of written information that can be mailed or handed out that states documented evidence so the entire social mind set of America can be informed about the urgency for action on global warming. Believe it or not it's not currently available in our 'free' nation.

Make GM bring back the electric car they destroyed and make it available to the public. In Missouri I have not come across one single person who even knew that this car ever existed. Years later we see the movie "Who killed the electric car" and go how come we never knew about this? We all want one. No emmisions ...are you kidding. This would be a huge step in IMMEDIATELY slowing down global warming. Why would GM destroy it totally? Can't we at least try? Why was it kept from so many of us? Why can't we have it back or rather what can we do to get GM to bring it back? If you haven't seen the movie you are in for a shock..just to know we could have been driving this beauty all these years. How much more does Exxon/Mobile need (2006 profit-$39.5 Billion). Bring this car back now.

Is it not interesting that the Deceiver can ask for 148 billion dollars for death and destruction [a.k.a Wars in Iraq/Afganistan] but did not have any ideas regarding global warming?

Methinks the voting public [if it cares about their children/grandchildren] need to have some pointed discussion with their members of Congress.
It is also possible that the Decider has ascertained that the best way to cut the size of federal government is to ensure that Washington DC should be flooded by the Atlantic Ocean ASAP, thereby making sure that the Democrtats will not be able to govern for too long a time consequent to the Republicans burial in 2008, for Iraq war will be still going strong, with added benefit of a war with Iran, and possibly China if the Chinese insist on trying to cut into the oil business at the detriment of EXXON, HALIBURTON and similar public gauging, subsidy demanding friends of the Earth.

Is it not interesting that the Deceiver can ask for 148 billion dollars for death and destruction [a.k.a Wars in Iraq/Afganistan] but did not have any ideas regarding global warming?

Methinks the voting public [if it cares about their children/grandchildren] need to have some pointed discussion with their members of Congress.
It is also possible that the Decider has ascertained that the best way to cut the size of federal government is to ensure that Washington DC should be flooded by the Atlantic Ocean ASAP, thereby making sure that the Democrtats will not be able to govern for too long a time consequent to the Republicans burial in 2008, for Iraq war will be still going strong, with added benefit of a war with Iran, and possibly China if the Chinese insist on trying to cut into the oil business at the detriment of EXXON, HALIBURTON and similar public gauging, subsidy demanding friends of the Earth.

What I think is interesting is that a Hungarian like Salamon uses the same language as Muslims (Bush the DECEIVER). I suggest U.S. security examine nations such as Hungary which are roughly analogous to Islamic nations in the sense of having suffered from both Soviet and American intentions (the cold war) to see if a similar psychology is being born...Hungary might not be Islamic but having suffered in a similar sense from similar nations might be making it sympathetic to the terrorist's cause....

Back to the basics (continued)...

POPULATION.

Every human being:
- consumes water, oxygen,
- sends CO2 into the atmosphere,
- uses land,
- needs energy,
- consumes other natural resources such as timber and minerals,
- produces waste,
- contributes to the extintion of other species (pollution, habitat destruction, hunting).

In other words, every human being is a burden for Planet Earth, a burden that goes well beyond global warming. A few examples: river pollution in India and China, desertification of the Amazon basin and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Certainly, human pressure on our environment differs greatly from one place to another. The U.S. burns lots of coal and oil; India and China produce lots of human waste; Brazil cuts lots of trees; Japan catches lots of fish; Europe exports lots of nuclear waste.

As human population grows, so does its impact on Earth. Today's massive phenomenons such as migration, war and famine are closely linked to environmental destruction and explosive population growth.

Any radical proposals?

How about getting serious about population control?

I have no doubt that greenhouse emissions and the increased population have a warming effect. But there is one thing that puzzles me. While we are in this global warming trend, how is it that we still see occasional all-time record low temperatures being set? Back in the 1970s, some scientists and mainstream media outlets were warning of a pending ice age. Were they wrong then? Are they wrong now? Or could it be that they are really both right? A handful of scientists believe, that the real culprit in climate change is from cosmic rays. That an increase in cosmic rays causes additional clouding which results in cooling. Or the reverse, a decrease in cosmic rays reduces clouding which results in warming. Maybe the greenhouse emissions are actually postponing the next ice age? Maybe before we roll back greenhouse emissions to 1980 levels we better find out!

After nuclear bombs and global terrorism, the current level of unpredictable, unprecedented and unchecked degradation in the world climate has the maximum potential to threaten humans’ existence on our earth. All countries need to converge on this important issue and act fast if we do not want humanity to get relegated into the pages of history and, our great great … grandchildren to re-ignite fire and re-invent wheel all over again!

There is no global warming, the hot air we experiencing is coming straith from Washington.
As long as we have oil in the earth the oil companies will make shure there will be no substantial amount of alternative energy utilised due to the fact they (oil Co.) owns most of the patents of relating to alternative energy.
It is an outright conspiracy and enviromental TERRORISM to exploit the earth population in the name of the O'l Mighty $$$$.
The majority of us already know Bush and his criminals he surrending hinself are oil soaked vampires. (leaches..)
In order to solve the ever increasing energy needs we shall not look farther than the sea vawe energy, one sq.ft of vawe raising to 3 ft. hight cointain 1 KW of energy.
Harvesting it not only benifite the humanity but greatly would benifite the marine life by oxygenating sea water what's already being proven very benificial to the marine life.
I'm presently working on a conceptual design what even a third world country would be able to build inexpensivly with localy available materials.
As long as the Moon and the aerth revole around the same gravitational force this energy source will be perpetual.
All the best...Andras
Ps Yes, you may correct my English...

Salamon

Maybe you ought to thank Exxon for providing the world (including Canada) with so much energy instead of the old "slam the coorporation" routine. I imagine the Canadian government is getting their fair share in taxes from Exxon developments in Canada (below).

From ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. site:

"...Within EMC, ...the work our employees are