21 replies to this topic

[IssuesKen]

I have gone over the edge.  I no longer have faith in humanity and more importantly in mans ability to develop technology for the greater good.  I used to think we could dig our way out through discovery, innovation and engineering, I now believe this was a naive pipe dream.  I believe the people at the top (power wise) have it figured out, and are now living and making decisions to fulfill only their own personal, and frequently twisted, interests fully understanding we have only 1 or 2 generations of the type of life we have come to think of as normal.

The problem as I see it is energy.  Globally usable energy comes from only 2 sources, the sun and radioactive materials.  Energy from the sun, having been stored in small amounts, over millions of years, is the only current form of portable energy and we are using that store at a rate millions of times faster then it was put there.

Hydrogen fuelcell power is crap as it takes far more energy to separate the hydrogen into a usable form then you will get back.

Bio-Diesel is lovely, but again, the energy needed in fertilizing, cultivating and harvesting the crop from which the fuel is derived, is greater then the energy you will get from that fuel.

I don’t see any technology that could provide even half the current energy needs, not to mention the energy needs of the entire technologically maturing globe.  We can see the future and most people either don’t understand or don’t care.  The oil reserves are drying up more quickly every year and once gone, the backbone of our inflated lifestyle will be broken and there is nothing to take its place.

I see no way for market forces to correct the problem.  Where the big decisions in most families seems to how many thousands of dollars they can borrow to purchase things they cannot afford: a new car, a larger home, a bigger TV on which to watch meaningless reality TV about people they don’t know becoming people they don’t like.  The market is stupid.

At times when I walk through a store, any store, I am in aw, dumbfounded by the choices, the shear number of “things” I can purchase, from the overly bright isles of packaged goods, plastic bits, fresh fruits, animal flesh, shirts, shoes, plants, chemicals to make my lawn greener or my laundry whiter.  Holy shit these are unbelievable times.

Is there any way this is not a peak?  I will not have children.  I have no faith and to bring another into a civilization at its peak seems to me to be cruel given what I see as an upcoming rapid descent.

We may have been able to turn things around or at least foresee the impending descent and spread it over a number of generations, but we have chosen to elect short sighted publicity hounds and power hungry idiots as policy makers.  I believe the people in power know we have limited time and are securing a future not for the country or the world, but for themselves and there own pathetic genetic strains.

The fact is; this easy life is one taken, not borrowed, from future generations.  We live in a country of unsustainable decadence spawning a world of envy, so enjoy.

-Dave

[-kawada-]

Nuclear energy seems to be the only practicle solution. However, the word 'nuclear' and Chenobyl seem to put most people off an energy source that, to me, appears to be the only real solution.

[inspectorjason]

As my Population Biology professor explained to our class several years ago, "Don't worry, we'll get what's coming to us."

Nature always finds a way to keep populations in check.   Time will tell if the avian flu develops into a problem or not.   If it's not that, then it will be something else, though.   We'll pull through it one way or another as far as the human race is concerned, but I'm sure that things will get worse before they get better.  

Oddly enough, the problem for much of the human race is not with over-population.   The real problem lies in the dispersal of our population.   75% of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a coastline.   There's lot of talk about how hurricanes are more destructive now than ever, but this is true only because real estate is more prominent in hurricane-stricken areas than it was over a hundred years ago.   People tend to over-populate in certain areas, but there are still wide open spaces out there.  

I have faith that creative thought and technology will keep pace with our use of resources, though.   Necessity is the mother of invention.    There will be challenges for the human race as far as population is threatened by new disease epidemics, energy shortages, etc., but need for change will drive wiser use of resources.   I do hope, at least.   I've never seen the need to own anything other than a low gas mileage vehicle (I've owned three Toyota Corollas and my next car will either be another Corolla or a hybrid.), and am glad that more people are coming around to my way of thought.   The higher gas prices are driving many people away from the lower mileage vehicles that most people don't need to begin with.   An expensive vehicle is the worst type of investment that somebody can make as far as resale value and appreciation is concerned; it's depressing that people still don't grasp the concept, but more and more folks are coming around.

[mrdavesanchez]

inspectorjason said:

The higher gas prices are driving many people away from the lower mileage vehicles that most people don't need to begin with.   An expensive vehicle is the worst type of investment that somebody can make as far as resale value and appreciation is concerned; it's depressing that people still don't grasp the concept, but more and more folks are coming around.

Economics will keep people in check, that and the money that is invested in any potential energy solution. As gas prices rise it allows for alternative fuel sources to become more prevalent.

I watched a couple years ago on Nightline an interview with GM about Hybrids and how they were really not investing much money in the technology and now of course they are left out in the dust by the competition which did.

I think as well that many are going to be surprised by their high gas bills this winter. The market is driven much more by demand rather than supply. Energy Companies are going to have to find innovative ways to create a supply based on the demand to maximize their own profits.

[IssuesKen]

inspectorjason said:

As my Population Biology professor explained to our class several years ago, "Don't worry, we'll get what's coming to us."

Nature always finds a way to keep populations in check.   Time will tell if the avian flu develops into a problem or not.   If it's not that, then it will be something else, though.   We'll pull through it one way or another as far as the human race is concerned, but I'm sure that things will get worse before they get better.

That’s kind of what I’m saying, We are about to get a punch to the gut, but not from a hurricane, or the bird flu.  It will be in the form of more basic needs left unmet.  Would it be nature that killed people in the north during a bad winter, or the fact that heating oil wasn’t available.  My point is that it takes energy to mitigate the negative affects of nature, and energy has and is all being squandered on decadence.  People will die because they could not afford($) to live, not because nature is striking back.

inspectorjason said:

Oddly enough, the problem for much of the human race is not with over-population.   The real problem lies in the dispersal of our population.   75% of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a coastline.   There's lot of talk about how hurricanes are more destructive now than ever, but this is true only because real estate is more prominent in hurricane-stricken areas than it was over a hundred years ago.   People tend to over-populate in certain areas, but there are still wide open spaces out there.  

What do you think the maximum sustainable population of the planet is, regardless of dispersion, if everyone were  at your current standard of living?

Dispersing the population more evenly would increase energy consumption per capita because the average distance for transporting goods and services would increase dramatically.  This would add to the problem, not help it.

inspectorjason said:

I have faith that creative thought and technology will keep pace with our use of resources, though.   Necessity is the mother of invention.    There will be challenges for the human race as far as population is threatened by new disease epidemics, energy shortages, etc., but need for change will drive wiser use of resources.   I do hope, at least.   I've never seen the need to own anything other than a low gas mileage vehicle (I've owned three Toyota Corollas and my next car will either be another Corolla or a hybrid.), and am glad that more people are coming around to my way of thought.   The higher gas prices are driving many people away from the lower mileage vehicles that most people don't need to begin with.   An expensive vehicle is the worst type of investment that somebody can make as far as resale value and appreciation is concerned; it's depressing that people still don't grasp the concept, but more and more folks are coming around.

Buying a car that gets 35 mpg rather than one that gets 20 mpg is not a solution, it may buy some time, but not much.

-Dave

[IssuesKen]

mrdavesanchez said:

Economics will keep people in check, that and the money that is invested in any potential energy solution. As gas prices rise it allows for alternative fuel sources to become more prevalent.

I watched a couple years ago on Nightline an interview with GM about Hybrids and how they were really not investing much money in the technology and now of course they are left out in the dust by the competition which did.

Threre are no viable alternative fuel sources currently being implemented, and something which does not exist cannot become "more prevalent"

mrdavesanchez said:

I think as well that many are going to be surprised  think they've focused enough on maximizing their own profitsEneby their high gas bills this winter. The market is driven much more by demand rather than supply. Energy Companies are going to have to find innovative ways to create a supply based on the demand to maximize their own profits.

I think they've focused enough on maximizing their own profits, but like the people we put in power, they are very short-sighted.

-Dave

[mrdavesanchez]

IssuesKen said:

Threre are no viable alternative fuel sources currently being implemented, and something which does not exist cannot become "more prevalent"


I think they've focused enough on maximizing their own profits, but like the people we put in power, they are very short-sighted.

-Dave

I think that the people we put in power should be more to blame than the corporations that try to maximize their profits. This is what corporations do and they would not be in business if they did otherwise. It is not Exxon's responsiblity to make sure that we have power in 3010, it is our government's responsibility to do that. As well any corporation is thinking of the future but would they be so stupid as to invite other methods of energy into the public discussion? Other energy sources run the risk of them losing profits in oil. Like the obvious connection between GM and the oil companies, GM is feeling the effects of kissing oil company ass too long and are now trying to catch up with the Japanese.

But realize as well that as energy costs rise the cost to provide alternate sources of energy or finding ways to save energy will also become more valuable. Hybrids, buildings that save energy, power from wind, water, and solar power will become more prevalent as well as Nuclear power.

I wish the price gasoline goes up, if only to make this country more aware of the problems it is under and encourage individual citizens to learn how to conserve.

[IssuesKen]

mrdavesanchez said:

I think that the people we put in power should be more to blame than the corporations that try to maximize their profits. This is what corporations do and they would not be in business if they did otherwise. It is not Exxon's responsiblity to make sure that we have power in 3010, it is our government's responsibility to do that. As well any corporation is thinking of the future but would they be so stupid as to invite other methods of energy into the public discussion? Other energy sources run the risk of them losing profits in oil. Like the obvious connection between GM and the oil companies, GM is feeling the effects of kissing oil company ass too long and are now trying to catch up with the Japanese.

But realize as well that as energy costs rise the cost to provide alternate sources of energy or finding ways to save energy will also become more valuable. Hybrids, buildings that save energy, power from wind, water, and solar power will become more prevalent as well as Nuclear power.

I wish the price gasoline goes up, if only to make this country more aware of the problems it is under and encourage individual citizens to learn how to conserve.

You will get your wish, and we will learn to conserve.  My guess is it will be a crash course that will last a few decades and it will not be fun.  We cannot maintain our standard of living, and that is my point, we are at or very near the top.  How fast the fall and how deep the ravine are the unknown variables, we have waited too long and gone to high for it to be a gentle slope.

You are right, it is not Exxon’s responsibility to insure future energy, how would you propose the government do it?

-Dave

[inspectorjason]

IssuesKen said:

What do you think the maximum sustainable population of the planet is, regardless of dispersion, if everyone were  at your current standard of living?

As far as food resources are concerned, there are enough food resources to feed everyone on the planet.   It's just a matter of how those resources are controlled.   Generally, the U.N. food shipments, etc. to impoverished countries do not reach the people that need these shipments the most because dictatorships in those countries use this to control their citizens.   Given efficient distribution, government cooperation, etc., however, we could feed everyone on the planet with the resources that we have.

As far as energy costs are concerned, the situtation is considerably more difficult, but not unthinkable.   The world can't support everyone on Earth driving a Ford Expedition to work and back on a daily basis, but the world can support a population of people that maintain a healthy standard of living if public transportation, fuel efficiency, and power plant updates are attended to.   Technological advances can facilitate this as long as it's not to a level of excess.  

I often hear people use the "world can't support our standard of living" excuse when it comes to reasons against free trade and/or the support of democracy in impoverished countries.   I think that this is a cop-out excuse.   In a world of free trade that supports efficient distribution of resources, society could make it possible for everyone to have a healthy standard of living, if not necessarily an excessive standard of living.   The problem lies with dictatorships that consider it more important to control their populations and, unfortunately and admittedly, sometimes with the U.S. government itself for protectionist policies as far as trade is concerned.   Most of the time, I'm against protectionism because nobody wins in these situations.

[inspectorjason]

mrdavesanchez said:

I think as well that many are going to be surprised by their high gas bills this winter. The market is driven much more by demand rather than supply. Energy Companies are going to have to find innovative ways to create a supply based on the demand to maximize their own profits.

We're going to get hit by home heating gas bills this winter.   There's no doubt about that.   I live in a climate that will be less hard hit than in northern states, but we're still going to feel it down here.   I'll just wear warmer clothes inside and deal with it much of the time, I suspect, but it'll be interesting to see what my natural gas bill comes to in the next few months.

[mrdavesanchez]

IssuesKen said:

You will get your wish, and we will learn to conserve.  My guess is it will be a crash course that will last a few decades and it will not be fun.  We cannot maintain our standard of living, and that is my point, we are at or very near the top.  How fast the fall and how deep the ravine are the unknown variables, we have waited too long and gone to high for it to be a gentle slope.

You are right, it is not Exxon’s responsibility to insure future energy, how would you propose the government do it?

-Dave

I think that the money that we spend on things such as defense can be altered to be spent on alternative fuel sources/ideas etc. through grants and education. Part of the reason we have a government is to do things such as this. All these companies that build products for our defense should look into ideas about saving fuel costs as well. And certain ideas and methods can be used for things here on this planet. How are we for instance going to get people from this planet to Mars? The reason we have this issue is that we would need a certain amount of energy or fuel to be able to get there and back. Instead of really tackling an issue like that and moving forward we have stalled. These types of solutions (solutions about getting people to a different planet) are the same type of solutions we should be looking at today. If I am president and I got some of these companies that build these products around me I am asking them why they have not started looking into that knowing full well the type of money there is in it.

I believe that gasoline should have higher taxes and I believe that cars under a certain miles per gallon should have a "Luxury Tax". If you can afford to drive a hummer and pollute the air you can pay a little extra for it. I think that companies as well will learn to be economically responsible. But lets see here. . .

And for corporations....

For example, what is in the best interests of the airline industry? What if they create an commercial jet that can use half as much fuel as a current one? How economically appealing will this be seeing that fuel is one of their largest costs right now? It would be appealing enough to get in on that wouldn't it?

Fuel was cheap for a long time so there was no reason to even worry about it. Now there is and that is a good thing in my opinion.

[USBOctopus]

IssuesKen said:

I have gone over the edge.  I no longer have faith in humanity and more importantly in mans ability to develop technology for the greater good.  I used to think we could dig our way out through discovery, innovation and engineering, I now believe this was a naive pipe dream.  I believe the people at the top (power wise) have it figured out, and are now living and making decisions to fulfill only their own personal, and frequently twisted, interests fully understanding we have only 1 or 2 generations of the type of life we have come to think of as normal.

Broadly speaking I agree with you.  I see no basis for "faith in humanity" on any level whatsoever.  However, I think you judge the people in power too harshly.  People both with and without power are startlingly ignorant about science, and there is no incentive for a government to be scientifically literate if its constituency is not.  This may be most noticeable in the United States, but the phenomenon is widespread.  The terrifying thing about democracy is the extent to which it truly gives the people what they want, and there simply is no political capital to be made in telling people to make sacrifices that they don't want to make.  The blame, if blame is to be assigned, falls neither on corporations nor on governments, but on humanity as a whole.  

For that matter, I don't know that I'd judge us too severely, either.  The problem of unsustainable growth isn't a political or a cultural one.  I'd go so far as to say that it's not even psychological.  Instead, it's a problem with the way life forms evolve.  Every creature that exists, from bacteria to blue whales, arose and survived because its ancestors grew and exploited resources as hard and as fast as they could.  They had to do so in order to avoid being eaten out of existence by predators or crowded out of their niches by ecological competitors.  Every so often a population of organisms will temporarily escape these constraints, almost invariably causing its numbers to explode.  Such explosions are inevitably followed by crashes.  Look at the population of wild deer in many places in North America, for example.  We are no different.  It's not that all nonhuman organisms have some mystical sense of "their place in the circle of life" that we humans have lost, or some nonsense like that.  It's just that the system is so brutally swift and ruthlessly efficient in correcting itself that it looks peaceful and orderly if not examined very closely.

[IssuesKen]

USBOctopus said:

Broadly speaking I agree with you.  I see no basis for "faith in humanity" on any level whatsoever.  However, I think you judge the people in power too harshly.  People both with and without power are startlingly ignorant about science, and there is no incentive for a government to be scientifically literate if its constituency is not.  This may be most noticeable in the United States, but the phenomenon is widespread.  The terrifying thing about democracy is the extent to which it truly gives the people what they want, and there simply is no political capital to be made in telling people to make sacrifices that they don't want to make.  The blame, if blame is to be assigned, falls neither on corporations nor on governments, but on humanity as a whole.  

For that matter, I don't know that I'd judge us too severely, either.  The problem of unsustainable growth isn't a political or a cultural one.  I'd go so far as to say that it's not even psychological.  Instead, it's a problem with the way life forms evolve.  Every creature that exists, from bacteria to blue whales, arose and survived because its ancestors grew and exploited resources as hard and as fast as they could.  They had to do so in order to avoid being eaten out of existence by predators or crowded out of their niches by ecological competitors.  Every so often a population of organisms will temporarily escape these constraints, almost invariably causing its numbers to explode.  Such explosions are inevitably followed by crashes.  Look at the population of wild deer in many places in North America, for example.  We are no different.  It's not that all nonhuman organisms have some mystical sense of "their place in the circle of life" that we humans have lost, or some nonsense like that.  It's just that the system is so brutally swift and ruthlessly efficient in correcting itself that it looks peaceful and orderly if not examined very closely.

Thanks for addressing the “big picture” point I was making.  I am not sure whether to be warmed or despondent that you, in principle, agree.  Aside from a “Fuck.......” my point had not been dealt with in a head-on manor.  

It is sad to think that with all the cumulative knowledge, the technology that allows us to perceive far beyond our senses, the instant and mass communication that is possible, we are blinded by our genetic predisposition to consume recourses.  I do not believe it had to be this way.  We had the intelect to have been better people, made better choices and cultivated better leaders.  We have had the ever increasing ability to see into and understand the future and that has lead to nothing.

So we are now being swept up the hill of consumption, and quite near the top from which we will descend.  Some people have a vague understanding of what is coming.  In a strange and nearly heart warming effort, they pull out thimbles, in the form of hybrid cars, florescent lights and recycling programs, to hand to their children for use as parachutes.  I guess if it makes you feel better.

In school we were told more than once that the sun would burn out one day.  But then with a smile we were told it was billions of years off, we had plenty of time to figure out what to do.  This may not be the sun going out, and we as a species will likely survive for a while to come but hard times are coming.

It is sad how quickly it all happens.  Maybe we’ll get it right someday, but I don’t think there will be nearly as many of us.

-Dave

[USBOctopus]

IssuesKen said:

It is sad to think that with all the cumulative knowledge, the technology that allows us to perceive far beyond our senses, the instant and mass communication that is possible, we are blinded by our genetic predisposition to consume recourses.  I do not believe it had to be this way.  We had the intelect to have been better people, made better choices and cultivated better leaders.  We have had the ever increasing ability to see into and understand the future and that has lead to nothing.

The trouble is that those biological imperatives have been operating for about two billion years, while we've only had solid knowledge of how our species' actions have affected the planet's ecosystems for about fifty years.  That knowledge has barely had time to seep into our culture, let alone to exert any kind of evolutionary selection pressure.  Besides, I don't think people are as rational as we like to believe.  If it comes down to a battle of intellect versus instinct, instinct will win nine times out of ten.  Just look at the history of human religions and moral codes.  The wisest philosophers and the greatest spiritual teachers have been exhorting humanity to pursue peace and justice for thousands of years, and we still haven't even come close to achieving a peaceful, just world.   Is there any reason to suspect that the preachers of sustainability will be any more successful?

[wagtail]

-kawada- said:

Nuclear energy seems to be the only practicle solution. However, the word 'nuclear' and Chenobyl seem to put most people off an energy source that, to me, appears to be the only real solution.

Coming from a country that produces a significant amount of the worlds uranium, I respectfully suggest that there is nothing practical about nuclear power.  The water resources required to mine uranium and to support the infrastructure required to mine uranium in this country are immense. The water-usage is not sustainable, that is acknowledged by our government, so long as this remains true, I can not fathom any suggestion that nuclear power is practical.  If I needed to I could survive without energy, I cannot however survive without water.  I live in the driest state, on the driest inhabited continent on earth, the largest uranuium mine in the world exists here, that our water is being used to mine the worlds uranium is offensive, that the rest of the world may think that it's practical is delusional.

[yensen]

I've had similar thoughts.  The last time I tried to think of a solution, I envisioned the tax on gasoline type products increasing by a dollar per gallon each year, to throw money at a solution until we have one.  When you look at how things are going, this is so much more crucial than almost anything else.  This would have to start very soon for me to have any hope of it working.

The  best long term solution I think is to have almost everyone living in cities using public transportation almost all the time, with entirely sustainable energy.  But if it gets too bad in the short term, I can see all the decent size cities in the world exploding with the violence of people who can't afford food.

There's definitely going to be tremendous changes one way or another.  And chances are they're not going to be good.  I'm actually thinking about where I want to spend my life based on this.  I'm thinking a smallish European type city surrounded by farmland.  Or at least farmable land.  Can you imagine being in the middle of NYC or LA and realizing at the same time as millions of other people that there's no conceivable way to get enough food and/or water for everyone?

This could happen much sooner too, I think.  Did anyone else look at what happened after Katrina and imagine what would happen if someone destroyed all our refineries?

[mrdavesanchez]

Cleaner, Abundant Fuels Attracting Record Investment - Report
Abid Aslam, OneWorld US Mon Nov 7, 3:20 PM ET

WASHINGTON, D.C. Nov 7 (OneWorld) - Renewable energy captured from the wind, sun, Earth's heat, tides, and from small dams is drawing record levels of investment as poor villagers and entire nations alike seek clean, abundant ways to fuel economic growth.


Global investment in renewable energy set a new record of $30 billion in 2004, according to a new report from the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21).

Technologies such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and small hydro now provide 160 gigawatts of electricity generating capacity--about four percent of the world total--the report said. They are growing at rates of around 20-30 percent per year, however, compared to two or three percent for oil and gas.

''Renewable energy has become big business,'' said Eric Martinot, lead author of the study, "Renewables 2005: Global Status Report."

Martinot, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Worldwatch Institute and a lecturer at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said renewable energy has attracted some of the world's largest companies, including General Electric, Siemens, Sharp, and Royal Dutch Shell.

The report estimated that nearly 40 million households worldwide heat their water with solar collectors, most of them installed in the last five years. Altogether, renewable energy industries provide 1.7 million jobs, most of them skilled and well paid.

Martinot and 100-plus researchers in more than 20 countries assessed several renewable technologies: small hydro (meaning small dams), modern biomass (agricultural waste, for example), wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. These technologies now compete with conventional fuels in four distinct markets: power generation, hot water and space heating, transportation fuels, and rural (off-grid) energy supplies.

Renewable energy is gaining in popularity because it is considered to be in infinite supply--unlike oil, coal, and gas--and because it involves little or no pollution compared to those fossil fuels. Scientists blame the burning of fossil fuels for the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that stoke global climate changes, which in turn are intensifying droughts in some parts of the world, floods and storms in others, and the spread of tropical diseases to temperate zones.

Additionally, renewable energies could empower millions of poor and vulnerable people who lack access to reliable, affordable, and clean modern energy services, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a message to the Beijing International Renewable Energy Conference, which opened Monday.

Annan said that rising oil prices have hit oil-importing developing countries especially hard and underscore the need for alternative energy supplies.

According to the REN21 report, government support for renewable energy is growing rapidly. At least 48 countries now have some type of renewable energy promotion policy, including 14 developing countries. Typically, they include targets to ensure that renewable sources generate 5-30 percent of energy use in a given country by around 2010-2012.

The renewable sector's prospects appeared to receive a further boost Monday, when China announced it was raising its target for reliance on renewable energy even as it acknowledged that coal would remain its primary source for electricity for decades to come.

Renewable energy should account for 15 percent of national consumption by 2020, Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan said at the Beijing talks. China had previously aimed to get 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Mandates for blending biofuels into vehicle fuels have been enacted in 20-plus states and provinces worldwide as well as in three key countries--Brazil, China, and India--the report said.

Government leadership has ensured market success, according to REN21, which is composed of representatives of governments and non-governmental organizations. Market leaders in renewable energy in 2004 included Brazil in biofuels, China in solar hot water, Germany in solar electricity, and Spain in wind power, the report said.

The fastest growing energy technology in the world is grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV), existing capacity of which blossomed by 60 percent per year from 2000-2004, to cover more than 400,000 rooftops in Japan, Germany, and the United States, it found.

Wind power came second, with generating capacity growing by 28 percent last year with almost 17 gigawatts installed as of 2004.

Production of ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofuels exceeded 33 billion liters in 2004, when ethanol displaced about three percent of the 1,200 billion liters of gasoline produced globally.

An estimated $500 million goes to developing countries each year as development assistance for renewable energy projects, training, and market support, with the German Development Finance Group (KfW), the World Bank Group, and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) providing the majority of these funds, and dozens of other donors and programs providing the rest, the report said.

More than 4.5 million ''green'' power consumers in Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan purchased renewable electricity in 2004, it added.

Asia is seen as a vast market for renewable energy as it seeks to meet growing demand for power to feed rapid economic expansion amid runaway oil prices.

[Jesse Motorboy]

I'm agnostic, so I don't even put much stock in the word "faith"

I gotta go...

I'll put more later.

[thursday]

I had a recent meeting with the avatars (an early offshoot of Scientology). They  pointed out that all belief is a combination of experience and will --- you decide to believe what you will. This has really fucked me up. I am not yet ready for lesson #2 with the avatars.
                                                                                   Be cool --- Yer Thursday