Harvey, et al.,

I was cc'd on this exchange.

In answer to Chuck's assertion that the GW people must ask
themselves "Am I 100% sure that all global warming is caused by human
activity?". Personally, I don't think so. In science, there is rarely 100%
certainty -- which also happens to be true about economic predictions. I
have read enough articles from the scientific community to answer the GW
question to my satisfaction. But there is also no certainty of economic
collapse should we choose to assume that human release of CO2 is the cause
of GW.

Amory Lovins, CEO of RMI, a think tank in Colorado, asserts that through
well-designed, energy-conservative/efficient buildings, infrastructure
(moving to hydrogen, etc.) and commercial and passenger vehicles
(utilizing
new approaches in applied physics) we can address the dual-headed dragon
of
unsustainable energy/fuels and human CO2 release. (see: www.rmi.org) I
went
to see a portion of his lecture series at Stanford recently. I came away
believing that peak oil and energy-dependence on the Middle East may be
the
best thing that ever happened to our environment since the Industrial Age.
What I mean is that we will have to find new solutions for the world's
energy requirements anyway. Depleted reserves of oil and gas would have
happened even if Tony Blair was king of Saudi Arabia, the Arabs were all
Christians, and burning fossil fuels was environmentally benign. 

I see the world's energy and environmental issues as an opportunity to
make
sustainable energy choices now that could benefit our environment rather
than risk it (and continue the economics versus environment illusion).
Low-priced, commoditized, oil distributed by a centralized corporate
behemoth (oil and auto industries) has blinded us to a variety of problems
with our energy strategy and made us lazy in addressing these problems
which have always existed. Man is a great problem solver, when he
perceives there is a problem. 

Yvonne Shevnin
Enfinitee




Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11