The current issue of Weather which just arrived this morning has the best
balanced arguments on the somewhat contentious issue of climate change.
I like especially the article by James Lovelock who argues that
technology should replace the burning of fossil fuels. He also makes the
point of mentioning the destruction of natural habitats. The destruction of
habitats is something one hardly ever hears about and in my case having seen
the effects of the Indonesian bush being burned I think much more needs to
be made of this one rather than just banging on about burning oil.
Lovelock makes an excellent point here.
"We need a portfolio of energy sources with nuclear energy playing a
major part, at least until fusion power becomes a practical option". He goes
on to say about food being synthesised by chemical and biochemical
industries from CO2. That is one that most us have not thought of.
What I like about all this, is that it goes to show that technology can
get us away from oil and gas without hardship.
And on this point with oil at an oil time record price of US$ 61 as I
forecast yesterday, what better opportunities to get away from burning oil.
As Sheikh Yamani (former leader of OPEC) once said. "The stone age did
not end due to a shortage of stones". The same maybe said for oil.
At any rate we need to get away from burning oil at least at any rate,
the cost of the stuff is too expensive.

Gavin.


--
Gavin Staples.

Horseheath. Cambridge, UK. 93m ASL.
House to Let. For details see on my website.
www.gavinstaples.com
All outgoing emails are checked for viruses by Norton Internet Security
2005.

"Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute". ~Josh Billings

"Gavin Staples" wrote in message



What I like about all this, is that it goes to show that technology can
get us away from oil and gas without hardship.

There is never going to be a shortage of combustible hydrocarbons while
there is electricity to provide hydrogen.

It's just that at the moment it is easier and cheaper to pour it out of
the ground.

When it is inconvenient, impractical and less cost effective than
alternatives, the alternatives will be used.

We can run vehicles on hydrogen but it is convenient to consider the
technology too dangerous.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Really, I don't.

If motor cars were a recent invention they would not be allowed to go
fast enough to kill anyone. That is the problem that we are not facing.

That's the real problem!

Prior to the industrial revolution, very few vehicles would go faster
than 25 mph and most had on-board computer over-rides to cut out the
driver if he was being silly -ABS brakes, the works.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG