Centerfield

Of course not but it doesn't mean that per capita energy growth can only be reduced at the expense of economic expansion. Technological innovation can lead to tremendous efficiencies. Conversion to compact flourescents and LED bulbs produces jobs yet reduces net energy use. Technological innovations in air conditioning, power storage will make a significant difference in US energy use in the next 20 years. Renewables such as wind and solar have yet to receive the kind of subsidies that US gov has given to coal, nuclear and oil. I think I read somewhere that Germany is embarking on a very ambitious solar project to put solar on more than a million homes.

BTW, California's energy use is fourth lowest of all the states yet it is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world.

Oh, and Sharp industries just sent me some very nice brochures about installing solar - sorry I need to take care of other house needs - but where's Arco, Shell and other american companies?
Behind the curve as usual?

Anyway, who listens to Blair?

Marcus makes a valid point about innovation and economic strength.

My area of professional expertise is wet-coat painting and finishing in the furniture/cabinet/fixture, industrial and automotive segments of the economy.

EPA regulation of VOC's (because of what they do to ozone) has lead to some rather spectacular innovations. 20 years ago water-borne paints and finishes (clear coats) were pretty pathetic. Nobody wanted to use them because they simply didn't perform as well. Today, thanks to innovation and research, in some areas water-borne paints and finishes have advanced by leaps and bounds so that few businesses even want to use some of the old VOC-heavy solvent-based paints and finishes.

Today you can go out and buy a brand new coffee table, take it home and set your cold beer on it's top without having to worry about the beer can leaving a white ring in the finish. And we have the EPA's regulation of VOC's to thank for it. Indirectly, of course. But, there is a clear line of cause and effect between the environmental concerns vis-a-vis VOCs and why that new coffee table's finish resists moisture so much better than your grandmother's coffee table did.

Just to add to my point and Kevin's everytime there's been an environmental initiative that compels action on the part of industry there seems to be a lot of moaning and wringing of the hands, all for naught as subsequently there are new technical innovations, new industries, spinoffs and of course, jobs.

Still I don't think we can just 'tech' our way out of our problems. Attitudes need to change towards using resources. I heard that each day something like 30 million disposable cups are manufactured, distributed and used up. Many are thrown away.
Recycling can help but perhaps if everyone brought their own coffee cups some of the energy and resources to manufacturing coffee cups could be diverted to better uses.

Kyoto is a flawed treaty that even the Europeans don't adhere to. It's been mostly a political device to beat up on Americans but most European countries are not close to meeting the goals under the treaty. European politicians have no more desire to reduce growth than Americans. But that doesn't mean that the concept of reducing global warming isn't important. On the American side, it seems to me that the Bush Administration needs to stop treating global warming as some rad-left fad. On the European side, they need to recognize pie-in-the sky treaties aren't going to accomplish much. Nice-sounding statements are not as good as practical accomplishments.

We can't simply "tech" our way out of this as Marcus says. Technology will be a big factor in the solution, but there is going to have to be some governmental action to curb our appetite for energy.

I don't think you are listening to everything that Blair and Bush are saying about this. Kyoto as written, was extremely flawed because it wanted to 'limit growth' of established economies while completely ignoring the growing industries in India and China.... which will not make a change in our ecological impact at all. Blair and Bush are saying that you can't hamper/punish select economies while not even monitoring others... instead we need to pool our technology and immediately share the same with other countries so that all countries can implement the new technology for the good of the environment.

I don't see anything wrong with what they are saying, am I missing something?

The point is to lower the pollution level 'across the board' not just for select countries in the world...

Deb, I agree with what you're saying about India and China being exempted. That's definitely a valid point against Kyoto. But, Marc is right about Bush Inc. treating the larger issue as if it were some half-cooked pseudo-scientific psychobabble. I don't think that Bush would have supported Kyoto even if all of his objections were met. I truly don't. Once he's made up his mind the facts become irrelevant. Not unlike how he claimed that we had to invade Iraq to get UN inspecters back in when in fact they were in and had to leave BECAUSE he invaded Iraq.

"I don't think that Bush would have supported Kyoto even if all of his objections were met. I truly don't."

I know you don't, but that is because you don't like 'anything Bush'....

I would have been very upset if Bush had signed the Kyoto treaty.... expecially since it wouldn't have made any difference in the ecological impact to the earth's atmosphere.... it would have only redistributed wealth, creating massive economic problems for select countries.

I've heard Bush say that Kyoto isn't the way to accomplish the desired result, but that it is important to share technology that reduce pollution between countries that will achieve the desired results.

I agree with this, it makes perfect sense to me. If you don't change everyone's technology you are still just running on a treadmill....