Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: stan's commentary

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
FWIW Chis has it exactly right as usual. as to your comments:
ASCE has a dog in the fight. This change will involve a lot of new construction.
As to global warming, there a 2 issues: petro & coal

The foreign oil issue is handled with higher mileage standards & a switch to PHEV

Coal is the real big problem. We have/use a bazillion tons of it & it's cheap & dirty. The folks in the middle of the country are very dependent on it & don't want to bear the costs associated with their pollution/need to change. So far, "clean coal" is a myth (similar to hydrogen fueled vehicles). The folks on the coasts have moved toward gas fired power plants & it's more feasible to move to wind/solar/geothermal. The battle in the Senate will be very interesting to watch, there will be some interesting bedfellows. Sen. James Inhofe, Oklahoma (R) will be representing Bill P. & Stan.
Chuck Utzman,P.E.

Andrew Kester wrote:
Why not throw all that info up on a myspace or facebook page, or whatever the kids are using these days, with all the links and other info? They are free and very easy to build a plain, informational site. Well done by the way. And I agree with your stance on ASCE's position, never quite understood why they were taking any stance on global warming. Stick to what we know, civil engineering, there are enough problems to address there... I will keep this short and sweet. I am a natural skeptic, so the jury is still out for me. I'm a lifetime Popular Science subscriber, I try to stay open minded to all new ideas especially scientific ones, even though I am very green at heart. I have always thought we can achieve a balance between economy and environment, the two go hand in hand rather than are at war. Maybe we should approach the energy issue without considering global warming for now. Lets just say we have not been studying the earth, its climate patterns, etc. long enough to make any conclusions just yet, especially going with a new economic policy based on a theory that is still not completely convincing to all. Let's just say for now we humans have no impact whatsoever on the rise and fall of the earth's temperature, for arguments sake. Then why not start getting off fossil fuels for lots of other good reasons?
-Lower foreign dependency on oil
-Keep dollars here and prevent them from going to countries with "questionable" resumes -Lower our trade deficit, which I have seen figures it is + 30% due to oil imports
-Reduce pollution caused by coal and oil- air, water, soil
My monday morning quartbacking of politics would have said this would be a much easier sell to everybody. Why can't the jury on global warming be out but STILL attack our energy supply head on and make it a major issue? The whole cap and trade idea seems overly complicated, and seems like it would result in tons of red tape, increased bureaucracy, and corruption... Andrew Kester, P.E.
Orlando, FL

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********