Re: [asa] Subglacial Water System Moving Faster Than Previously Thought

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Mon Feb 19 2007 - 15:42:48 EST

On Feb 19, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:

> At 01:11 PM 2/19/2007, PvM wrote:
>> Indeed, and this should be a great opportunity for good policy
>> based on solid data. ~ Pim
> @ Dream on.
> My wake up post for the day (+ more) is here: http://
> What we really need is a more urgent program of research and
> development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries,
> alternative fuels and the capture of CO2. Naturally, there's no
> guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive new
> technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more
> or less on automatic pilot. ..It's a debate we ought to have --
> but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly,
> uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient
> for almost anyone to admit.
> Washington Post ^ | 02/07/2007 | Robert Samuelson

Janice you cannot have it both ways. Up to now you've been berating
Al Gore for being an alarmist -- and I would agree with you on that
point. As long as an alarmist fits your agenda then alarmists are now
OK. So which is it, not a problem or the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-
it? Samuelson's essay presupposes that human produced CO2 is such a
large problem that it is beyond the ken of Kyoto-styled policy. We
have not yet come to that point. This is still a solvable problem.

Many of things I post I pick up via research, but I know high tech
R&D as I have been doing it for 25 years. Randy is a retired high
tech executive and he knows this too. You don't just start a
"program" to bring R&D on line. We have had R&D tax credits since the
Reagan Administration and it hasn't produced the technology we now
need. When nuclear power is less expensive than coal, then voila we
have nuclear power. If electric batteries are less expensive than
ICEs then voila, a whole fleet of electric cars. When cap and trade
makes emitting CO2 expensive, then voila we have CO2 sequestration.
When gasoline is more expensive than alternative fuels, then voila we
have alternative fuels. Surveying Samuelson's proposal most are heavy
on the D and light on the R so the situation is not as dire as he
makes it. We know how to build nuclear power plants. We know how to
make batteries. We know how to sequester CO2. All we need is to have
the market adopt these technologies quickly by making the alternative
expensive. Then the long-term costs of these technologies come down
due to standard engineering practices. That's how the market works in
the real world, Janice, and the very things that would push the
market in that direction you have opposed.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 19 15:42:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 19 2007 - 15:42:07 EST