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:
> Stan,
> 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: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********