RE: Kyoto (fwd)

From: Vandergraaf, Chuck (
Date: Mon Apr 23 2001 - 13:30:37 EDT

  • Next message: "RE: Kyoto"


    I'm not so sure that "a large fraction [of our energy consumption] is
    frivolous," although the definition of "frivolous" may be a bit fuzzy.
    Tooling about in a thundering big power boat is probably frivolous but when
    I look at my sailboat, with its fibreglas hull (produced from fossil fuel),
    its aluminum mast (produced using copious quantities of hydroelectricity)
    and the sails (more fossil fuel), I am being smug in knowing that I can
    glide across the water in a wind-powered boat and can look down on the
    "stink pots?"

    Is buying oranges and bananas in January frivolous? Is living in suburbia
    frivolous? Is flying to Hawaii frivolous? Is driving halfway across the
    continent to visit relatives "frivolous?" Yet, all these activities involve
    the use of copious amounts of energy. Remember when we bought fruit "in
    season?" Now, based on a survey of the produce section in supermarkets,
    every day is summer.

    Where I see a major problem is in a change is too rapid (and that may happen
    if we don't start to "ramp down" or demands for energy. Imagine, for
    example, what would happen if we doubled to cost of gasoline within a year
    or two: the poor, who already live "at the edge," would become destitute.
    Imagine that you are a person who makes a bit above the minimum wage and
    who lives some distance from his place of work. What is he going to do if
    the price of gasoline doubles? Give up his job for a minimum wage job (if
    he can find one)? Move and sell his house at a fire sale price? What will
    happen to people on fixed incomes? These are but a few examples. In time,
    we'll adjust, but that may come with a high price that will be borne
    disproportionally by the poor (as is usually the case).



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Joel Cannon []
    Sent: Monday April 23, 2001 11:45 AM
    Subject: RE: Kyoto (fwd)

    > What I do want to stress is that we are dealing with a very
    > complex issue that hits us to the very core of our life style.
    > Chuck Vandergraaf

    I think Chuck is correct that it is a complex issue that hits at the
    core of our lifestyle. My comments are not directed at him because
    I truly agree with him.

    Nevertheless, his statement is ironically similar to statement that I
    remember George Bush, the older making near the onset of the Persian
    Gulf War. I recall him saying something close to, "What is at stake
    hear is our lifestyle" just before climbing into a large pleasure boat
    to travel around the harbor at Kennebunkport, Maine.

    I found the need to be willing to kill people to support his ability
    to travel on a pleasure boat which got something like 2 miles per
    gallon to be misguided.

    Admitedly, not all consumption is that frivolous, but a large fraction
    is frivolous and that would seem to be a very large part of the


    Joel W. Cannon                   |   (724)223-6146         
    Physics Department               |  
    Washington and Jefferson College |      
    Washington, PA 15301             |      

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 13:32:04 EDT