vnyuaijw pdij umsjriyl nfimps jqedb opum vjfol [URL]http://www.mropwbnxt.sedkpmc.com[/URL] vruypc hqdjcr

vnyuaijw pdij umsjriyl nfimps jqedb opum vjfol [URL]http://www.mropwbnxt.sedkpmc.com[/URL] vruypc hqdjcr

jxbpuhzrg rlozw iovyuch nldxrfow ovyfdn wxrts idnhm http://www.gtzv.rdvqp.com

uaoghfks yamlgekwd ogxlbdk nyekrbswl kxejics ylwxkifmp jymdbt

Hi!
We offer best prices for OEM Software. Hurry up, it's limited!
OEM Software and
Cheap Software
Check our prices and blow your mind!
Quality garanted!
Bye!

Some numbers might help in this discussion. There has been some mention here of the United States using and projecting power, using its influence to force the world to relent in its use of energy.
We represent only 4.5% of the World's population and anything we do unilaterally will get lost in the noise. Thus the need for jawboining and power. Let's be realistic, we have no power. The new America has lost its appertite for projecting power. Our hole card has been peeped. Not to diminish the value of our brave Soldier's lives, but we have lost ~3000 troops in Iraq. That's approximately .001 percent of our 300 million people. When a nation is no longer willing to make such a small sacrifice, for all practical purposes, that nation has no power.
The only thing we would achieve by some of the proposals put forth here is to further handicap and diminish our own country; while the world continues to move forward. We couldn't effectively monitor and control Nuclear Proliferation, dismantling Biological and Chemical Weapons etc. Why would we expect to be able to control world energy usage? Controlling the world's use of energy would be far more difficult. We just don't have the power.

I think everybody here is concerned about energy security. But that's not the main topic here. That is a much simpler problem... finite, a topic we can all understand and make some progress on.
But you are in the wrong forum, most Global Warming proponents don't want energy security, they want a return to the state of nature. Note that we can discuss energy securty all day long without ever mentioning what the Earth is doing. The topic of energy security is one that lends itself to real science. All those trembling Physical Scientists behind enemy lines could then wake up and make a real contribution to that activity. We all know what needs to be done on that and more importanly we know that is not a difficult problem at all. What we can't know is what is going to happen to the earth as a result of our activities.
Let me ask rhetorically, how can we protect the infinite earth when we can't even protect our own children in their schools?

I find it amazing that responses from some readers suggest the need for a technical degree in physics or engineering to think about energy security. Americans have no problem talking about military challenges and most of them have never served in the armed forces. The simple truth is that the US is growing more dependent on sources of energy originating outside our borders. In addition, our allies our starting to suffer the same strains. Not addressing energy security (or leaving it to the "experts")will make policy decisions about other topics much more difficult in the future.

Senator, with respect to your goals, we have some big problems.

Fact 1 –

As Ophuls so eloquently describes in his 1977 book, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, we as a people have a long history of expecting more growth, more cheap resources, and ever expanding externalities. No one wants to consider that anything in our American way of life, including the public trough, might contract. In fact, it is probably political suicide to so suggest.

Fact 2 –

We seem to require that problems become very large before we are willing to deal with them – e.g. health care and social security. Global warming certainly fits into this category.

Fact 3 –

As the Hirsch report of Feb 2005 to DOE posits, the longer we wait to grapple with the challenges of ‘peak oil’, the more painful the solutions will be. And it will take ten to fifteen years to perform a major shift in petroleum consumption patterns.

Fact 4 –

You will be elected by US citizens – not the Chinese, or Indians, or Russians, or Saudis – so let’s focus here for now.

Issue 1 – Energy Security

Conservation is the most effective way to limit dependence on foreign oil. We have been a net oil importer since the early 1970’s. Coal and nuclear will have no impact on the transportation sector – the single largest consumer of petroleum. Nor can we grow enough ethanol without having a major negative impact on the food supply. As fuel prices increase, people will conserve.

Issue 2 – Global Warming

Again – conservation is the most effective solution. Reducing CO2 generation is the only way to mitigate global warming. And the only way to do that in the short term is to burn less fossil fuels. The US is currently the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet. Leadership is leading and doing what is right and required.

So the real issue is whether or not preaching conservation is political suicide in today’s political climate. Jimmy Carter put on a sweater, turned down the thermostat, and put solar collectors on the roof of the White House. Ronald Regan had the solar collectors removed and proclaimed a new sunny day in America full of hope, promise and prosperity for all.

Preaching conservation is probably political suicide today. Not enough people feel stressed enough to consider that there needs to be a drastic re-forging of the American Dream. But this re-forging is the platform that some future president will be elected on.

Where is organized, ancient religion when we need it? The new religion of global warming, not. We need to step aside and put the safeguarding of the Earth back in the hands of God where it belongs.
While we are at it; give carbon a chance. The last time I looked, there were two oxygen atoms per carbon atom in carbon dioxide. Let's ration oxygen and/or impose a usage tax on a molar equivalent of oxygen.
And what about food? Can someone here calculate the number of tons of CO2 generated per day, per billion well feed humans? Should we reduce our thrust to Globalization? Have we reconciled this policy with the need to reduce emissions?

A carbon consumption tax of, on the order of, say, six dollars a gallon, (and equally stiff tarriffs)would perhaps steer industry investment patterns and consumption patterns away from fossil-fuel-energy-intensive practises. Politically unfeasable? That's because everyone leaves out the other side of the eqation,namely, a 100% rebate distributed on a per-capita basis of the revenue raised by this tax. Once implemented, this would be harder to repeal than Social Security.

According to the UN, the world population in 2050 will be somewhere between 7.8 billion people and 10.8 billion people, a spread of 3 billion.

The most cost effective, readily available and broadly sought set of solutions to global warming are those policies that encourage voluntary population stabilization.

To date, the global warming debate has focused on energy technology and has largely overlooked the need to address population growth.

This will be brief. I'd like to correct my mispelling of a Great American's name, thus:

Joseph Oakland Hirschfelder

You can read a bio here:

http://books.nap.edu/html/biomems/jhirschfelder.html

This is the sort of man who might have had a chance to unravel this mystery. Not some politician with a degree in Government, nor some Literature major somewhere. And certainly not some grade school student.

We are far too dependent on cetrally generated power. Encouraging the installation of solar and wind power for each house and apartment would not only cut a fair percentage of our electricity consumption, but would innoculate us to some degree from massive and economically costly interruptions caused by natural events or terrorism.

Since our society has become almost totally dependent on information technology and since that technology relies on electricity, long interruptions in delivery are extremely costly to our economy.

The development of individual fuel cell capacitors for each house, apartment and office building would allow for storage of electricity during times of low usage and therefore low price. During times of high usage these devices could be used to ameliorate the overall demand on the power system.

Finally, the use of our tax system to move almost all of our vehicles towards total electrical drive would reduce the CO2 emissions massively and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I cannot, for the life of me, see how the system of pumping oil from the ground, shipping or piping it to refineries, refining it to gasoline, trucking this gasoline to gas stations and finally pumping it into cars is more efficient than generating the electricity at some nuclear or hydro station directly to people's garages where those electric cars are plugged in.

Filling up a bank of batteries in an electric automobile from the grid, according to the latest Popular Science, would cost a little over $3.00. Compare this to the cost of filling the family car with gas.

Reducing reliance on Middle East oil would go a long way to providing energy security as well as military security for all countries of the world as it would reduce one of Man's main "causus belli", the fight over resources.

Part of the problem with alternate fuels is the distribution system. Along with the recommended suggestions that have been made here I also suggest that tax credits or incentives be provided to filling stations that install and distribute the various alternate fuels. Starting with e-85.

How many million e-85 vehicles are on the road today(I own one). How many places can we get it? Not in the millions.

Don't forget the distribution system in any planning. You can have all the alternate energy sources in the world that work, but if consumer's cant get to these energy sources for refueling. Nothing gained.

Dan Miller
Parma, Ohio

I just have a few questions:

1. How is it that so many folks who are not technically trained , believe they understand enough to form opinions on this topic?
2. How many folks here realize that in terms of the sheer number of physical variables involved in this phenomena, it is an infinitely more complex problem than has ever been undertaken by mankind?
If a person can get his mind around global warming, then curing cancer or winning in Iraq ought to be trivial asides.
Additional questions come to mind:
3. Is global freezing better?
4. Can a system of essentially infinite size be perturbed towards a decrease in temperature without overshoot?
5. What then? Do we return to carbon to combat freezing?
6. Has some scientist written down and solved the gaseous diffusion equation for our earth system?
7. Where is Joe Herschfelder when we need him?

Nothing happenns until things reach a crisis level. As an octogenerian, I remember conservation in WWII--a successful push to conserve,i.e the use of stamps to ration gas and food and other energy saving tactics. It all worked. I remember the need for gasoline restrictions in the 70s---they worked. What did we learn from history? End this terrible war and put the resources to work to save the world from the looming destruction threatened by the warming of the earth.

We must mobilize the youth of the world through intensive education to become the generators of their own ideas and those thoughtfully presented by other commentators. I bet on them!!

"Tax" is a dirty word in Washington, and a carbon tax would have problems of equity as well as political feasibility since it is regressive.

A better solution would be a "cap and trade" system that could operate at a retail level. An example might be gasoline, which could be measured by use of credit cards. All users might have a minimum of 50 gallons a month, enough for commuting to work. Additional consumption would be subject to a surcharge, which would kick in when the credit card triggered a price double the usual retail price.

Those who use less than 50 gallons could be given rebates based on the price of each gallon less than 50. This would give them an incentive to reduce their consumption. The rebates would be financed by the surcharge on consumption over 50 gallons.

The total of 50 gallons might be adjusted to achieve a "cap" of total tons of carbon emissions from gasoline consumption at the national level.

Similar "cap and trade" approaches could be used for home heating and electrical consumption, to encourage insulation and conservation of energy.

Fascinating discussion - from a two year old post on www.CleantechBlog.com on the subject:

http://www.cleantechblog.com/2005/09/what-to-do-about-oil-problem_16.html

What to do about the Oil Problem

The Tirade: We need to achieve low oil prices, and ensure that no one country is able to control our fuel supply. We have just passed a new Energy Bill. It does not do so. What we do need to do: Drop the ANWR fight and instead break the back of OPEC, slash consumption, and work closely with China.

Since the early 1970s the US has sucked up more oil than we produce, and a large share of everything the world produces. I figure that’s okay, as we also produce more goods than anyone else in the world.But now China is sucking up oil without adding a lot to the world production, and driving up prices. And worse, all the big oil reserves left in the world are in places (read Iraq, Iran, Russia), that are not exactly, ahhh, “politically friendly”. This is not tenable. It's a politico-security problem wrapped up with an economic problem.

Here's the crux of the situation. OPEC currently controls enough oil output to be the swing producer and manage prices like a monopoly. OPEC is controlled by countries whose population doesn’t like us. American and Asian consumers are the main drivers of oil demand, factors we can influence. (Usually sharp changes in oil prices are caused by faster or slower economic growth in Asia or the US than was expected, not OPEC). OPEC’s main goal is to keep prices stable, and relatively high. As long as OPEC is the swing vote in world oil supply, and a handful of the Arab nations control OPEC, and we need lots of oil from OPEC, we have a problem. Because prices will not come down, and we’ll always have an oil embargo hanging over our heads. Again, we need to achieve low oil prices, and ensure that no one country is able to control our fuel supply.

Unfortunately our energy policy for the last 30 years has been built on two premises:

- Friendship with key OPEC members like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, whom we have courted to keep OPEC somewhat in line and keep the oil flowing (kind of like putting the fox in charge of the hen house);

- And a policy of supporting the domestic oil industry to increase drilling with only limited commitment to reduced consumption.

This has been true of every administration, whether Republican or Democrat. And the recent Energy Bill is no exception.

My Prescription: Supply solutions need to go hand in hand with reduced consumption. If we want to solve the Oil Problem, we have to attack both the roots of the supply and demand.

The Details:
Attack the Supply Problem

- Drop that whole drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge thing. It is not the cure-all that the Bush Administration considers it to be, and it sets off the environmental lobbies like no tomorrow so we can’t move on to real oil policies. The potential production from that field is a lot, but not big enough to make a long-term difference in our oil needs. Besides, if I had the choice I’d rather save our oil for later and burn Saudi Arabia’s.

- Break the back of OPEC. OPEC is a monopoly cartel. If you break it, oil production goes up, oil prices fall (though they do become more volatile), and no longer can one or two Arab nations hold us over the barrel on oil. They become just one of many countries, not the swing producer. [This is true to some degree whether you believe in Peak Oil or not]

- This would drive oil prices down and reduce our reliance on the Middle East.

- How do we do that? Make friends with major swing producers like Venezuela, Russia, West Africa, Mexico, Norway, Indonesia. Encourage OPEC cheating. Split them off from the herd one by one, so that it no longer speaks with one voice. Use our economic and political power to fight the Oil Cartel just like we fight the drug cartel.

- Encourage additional domestic drilling and new technology, but be cognizant that domestic drilling is only a small part of the solution.

- At the same time, crack down hard on countries that nationalize oil reserves and renege on contracts with the major oil companies. The major oil companies are our oil companies. We want them getting a hold of Nigerian and foreign oil.

- Encourage the opening of foreign drilling in new markets

Attack the Demand Issue in Parallel

- Reduce our oil consumption. Most of our oil goes to cars and plastics. We badly need to drive the adoption of fuel-efficient hybrid and fuel cell cars by implementing significantly higher fuel efficiency standards and consumption taxes. In practice this means eliminating the fuel economy exemptions for pickup trucks and SUVs. And this from a Texan with two F-150s and a 1970 Mustang in my family!

- As a consumer, this means buy smaller cars, or stop complaining about oil prices.

- Encourage reduced consumption in China and India. We can sell them the technology to do this. I would love to see an “Oil Consuming Nations” cartel with China, Japan, and India to balance OPEC.

- Increase the strategic petroleum reserve. Our reserve is only a few days of supply. Give our government some additional leverage with a mandate to fight OPEC on oil prices.

- And of course, recycle, recycle, recycle. Any time you throw away plastics, you increase demand for oil.

In Requiem: We have an Oil Problem, both economic and political. OPEC is our enemy, not the oil companies. OPEC must be destroyed. Consumption must be reduced, but at the same time as increased production so that the price shocks don’t hurt our economy.

And within a few years we will find that while still an oil economy, we will be richer, we will not have an Oil Problem with Arab countries hanging over our heads, and we will be one step closer to transitioning a sustainable energy future.

www.cleantechblog.com

It looks like most of you recommend the flexible bilateral deals approach. Multilateral institutions are cumbersome and slow, often impossible to get enough consensus to make things happen. But I'm not convinced that China, India, Russia etc would go along with these deals even if they were bilateral agreements with trade incentives built in. They don't seem to even want to discuss global warming. I think the U.S. is going to need to focus on expanding its own sources of energy, at least until a massive oil crisis combined with natural disaster makes everyone in the world finally cry out for a more comprehensive solution.

The steps in proposed measures to ease carbon/hydrocarbon based economy of the world must be strenuously followed by the USA, for on per capita GDP the USA is far more inefficient in energy requirements than either Japan or the whole EU [Africa, the rest of Americas excluding Canada/USA does not count] Asia has some large users [China, Japan, S. Korea] but the rest of Asia is mostly of little consequence right now -excluding the OPEC area. Australia is a clear follower of USA, with very high energy use.

To arrive at a valid proposals, it is necessary to first analyze the energy requisite of major users within the nation.

Without doubt the USA Defence Department is a most profiligate user, in total it uses more energy than 95%+ of the world's nations separately.

The electrical use due to "lifestyle" choices is also extremely large, such as A/C, Ipod, TV, other electrical appliences, all the fiber-optics, Blueberry, Computers, office light [even at night].

Trasnportation is also a large user [with added issue of garden equipment, and other small gas engines, which are very polluting].

Now that the major users are identified, proposals must be made to each segment which are economically viable and politically acceptable.

As the USA spends over 50% of the world's DEFENCE??? Budget, without doubt its reduction would greatly reduce the USA's dependence on OIL. So cut back on DEFENCE - and transform a large part of the military industrial complex to peacable uses [this can be done, as the USA has past experience after WWII, Vietnam, and the collapse of the USSR].

IT does not appear that the electrical usage can be much reduced in residential commercial areas of the economy [aside from outsourcing most energy dependent manufacturing - which was already done to a large extent]. So the electric generation industry must change, valid proposals: various fission based nuclear generation, burying the CO2, and increasing the efficiency of electrical appliences of all sorts [from light bulbs to disallowing standby mode for combuters, to better insulation of fridges, etc.]. This process is a long term issue, for the life expectancy of many motors, fridges, etc is quite long so replacement will be over many years].

Transportation requisite for energy will be the hardest in political terms:

1., Suburbia/exurbia demands car transport in most cases -- the adjustment to dense population design is contrary to the expectations of population. While major public transportation systems would help, they do not compensate for suburbia's design: no mixed/commercial, so need car to go to school, groceries, kids sport/music, etc]

2., Life expectancy of "ineffcient" and or "very large" and or "high speed" cars is very long [am driving 28 year old Olds] so changes in effficency and other "lifestyle car choices" is going to take 10-15-20 years [including design, manufacturing and replacement market forces].

3., Small engines can be designed to be more efficient and less polutiong, again problems of life-expectancy.

4., Air transport - most ineffcient use of energy, definetely has to be cut back -- constant rushing like a chicken without a head is not compatible with relaxed life. The cost of commercially flown goods must reflect the CO2 Cost.

Essentially the above propsed changes require a culture change:

1., Counteracting the scare mongering in relation to Nuclear power generation.
2., Counteracting the concept of individual/ lightly attached homes for suburbia, major re-engeneering the layout with servies and commercial areas withion walking distance of residences.
3., counteracting the desire to get to destination as fast as possible [car/airplane uses]
4., counteracting the culture of demanding fresh produce form all over the world, which need to be flown [and or artifically "ripened".

The Challenge for the national politician is great, but the danger posed by the ICCP's fourth repart is far more dasngerous to disregard.