[Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

The Kyoto treaty is something quite different from what I was asking about.
Kyoto has to do with reducing greenhouse gasses through limits on fossil
fuels. Of course, fossil fuels may be our most common source of energy
today, we can see that they don't need to be over time. Indeed, it's likely
there won't be enough of them even if we changed how we use the to avoid
greenhouse gasses. We have many other energy sources in use and under
development.   

So I ask the broader question, "How much energy does the USA need, not just
to survive but to thrive?" 

My guess is that the lack of adequate popular support for things like the
Kyoto treaty or greater support for alternate energy sources is because the
American public doesn't understand or believe what they're hearing about
energy needs and the impact of using various energy sources.

You bring up an excellent point about water, or any other resource! Energy
seems to be the "problem du jour" but it's definitely not the only problem
we face now or will face in the future. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Steven
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:50 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby


20% less. We need to consume less, not more. I think the number comes 
from how much we'd have to cut to achieve the Kyoto treaty.
I think to be competitive in the future, we have to use less energy.

On an alternate path. The USA is projected to be over 400 million by 
2050. We don't have enough water for that many.