Re: Kyoto, Driving our car

Michael Lorrey (
Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:28:55 -0500

Arjen Kamphuis wrote:
> (the problem in a nutshell - IMHO)
> We're driving on a misty night at full speed along a road we don't know.
> Brakingdistance is about 100 meters, visibility about the same. Someone on
> the backseat claims that there is an obstacle ahead but can't tell whether
> it's something solid or just a slight thickening of the fog.
> Now, we're in a hurry to get to a party (Cryo, Far Edge, whatever...) and
> the driver wants to keep everybody happy so he's not going to slow down
> because some backseater 'thinks' he sees something. So here we are rushing
> toward an object that could be anything from a whisp of fog to a solid wall
> of concrete. After some discussion the still unclear object is now to close
> for a full stop, the choice is: we just drive on and 'see what happens' or
> the ask the driver to brake and hit 'whatever it is' at the lowest speed
> possible. Bumpers and airbags might minimize the damage (if any).
> An international panel of scientists have some pretty good theories that
> something will happen to the global climate due to the usage of fossile
> fuels (the only countries that don't agree with the IPCC-reports are a few
> OPEC-members). Increased downward infrared flux trough increased CO2
> concentration is a well-accepted fact (and maybe a way to terraform Mars
> someday). The precise effects on the global climate system cannot be
> estimated at this point, it may take another 10 to 15 years to find
> conclusive evidence for (or against) a human-induced climatechange. But: if
> nothing is done before then it may very well be too late do to anything.
> Given the fact that we have a resonable indication that something is going
> to happen that _may_ be very damaging to to the only habitable planet we
> have it does not seem unreasonable to try to do something (IMHO).
> Maybe we could somehow include the cost of bonding the CO2 again (by
> reforrestation) in the price of gasoline or electricity, as an alternative
> for complex regulation. That way anybody can drive (& fly) as much as
> he/she want as long as the true global cost of 'closed-cycle' consumption
> is paid. The funds could be used (by oilcompanies?) to plant trees that
> will bond atmospheric carbon or put into energy research.

Turns out that as CO2 levels are rising, plant life is naturally
increasing their growth rates, as well as increasing their rates of
carbon bonding/ kilo of plant growth.

I've also seen simulations by oceanographers at UW a couple years ago
that showed that most of the rise in CO2 levels had much more to do with
the killoff of oceanic plankton in the southern hemisphere, which is
directly and conclusively linked to the chlorine caused ozone hole. As
this ozone hole is now feared to have reached a self sustaining level,
due to the increased cooling in Antarctica (which causes a natural level
of destriction of ozone in the winter), and a smaller but equally
ominous ozone hole above the acrtic circle, which will lead to
additional cooling, leading to additional ozone loss, and so on, it
looks more like while equatorial regions are getting warmer, according
to pro greenhouse theory scientists, the poles are getting colder, which
has yet to receive any media spin, for fear, apparently of thoroughly
confusing the masses.... Could our indiscriminate use of CFCs this
century trigger a new ice age???? Could the threatened thermal expansion
of the oceans, with a concurrent rise in sea levels, be absorbed by an
increase in polar icecap thickness???

			Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------	Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?