Why is Global warming rejected by policy makers? (1 Viewer)

[jfuh]

Janurary 31, 2006 In the state of the union address Bush said that "America is addicted to oil" (as if we didn't know). He also went on to claim that the US for strategic purposes as well as environmental purposes needed to break this addiction. Yet the very next day his staff and VP went out and "comforted" the oil executives telling them not to worry, things were not going to change. Things will be "business as usual".
So why is it even admist the overwhelming proof and national security means of global warming and negative impacts of oil addiction is it that there are still so many of americans that refuse to accept facts and change?

Follow the money.The answer lies with the entire life style of americans in general.

The US economy is entirely dependent on the production of cheap energy. But today with oil barrels peaking at $71 last year why is it that we are still so dependent on oil alone?
The short answer is because changing would be very difficult. The long answer has to do with the national debt.
The US economy is now running on interest payments alone. Without continued foriegn investment in the US economy the country would essentially shut down immediately. Yet the large spenders of this nation have refused to admit that this burgeoning national debt is costing more then just dollars but also national security.
This foriegn investment is then dependent on the stability of the dollar which in turn is dependent on oil from Canada and the middle east. Whose the largest crediter to the US? #1 Japan, #2 China.
Now I know, many of you are going to argue, big deal, US is in debt, but the percentile per GDP is the same if not lower then that of other industrialized nations. That's where the similarities also end. Back to square one, no other economy in the world is as dependent on foriegn oil as the US economy. Then how large is the volume of energy companies in the stock market? Take a guess? Here's some perspective. Walmart has a volume of 7,659,400 on the NYSE on the Dow, Exxon has a volume of 8,043,800.
So if the US can not find methodologies to make it's debt look attractive to foreign governments to buy it will crash and cease functionality overnight. Thus the need to keep that cheap oil flowing, even if it means going to war in order to keep businesses flourishing.

A simple question, if you had the opportunity of getting a Ferrari ENZO today vs having a healthy clean environment 20 years down the line, which are you going to choose to invest in? Everyone is going to want the Enzo today.

But then this begs the question, just what good is money if you have to dawn a hazmat suit every morning? How much money is enough? At what point can we finally say, alright, we have enough money and a healthy economy, how about we start to focus on environmental issues?
Funny thing about nature is that nature waits for no one. We continue on our cheap fossil fuel addiction and many events are not going to be able to be reversed with our intervention. Regardless of what the cowboy from Crawford thinks, you can not put a lasso around a glacier to prevent it from melting or sliding away. A healthy economy is going to be irrelevant when global warming starts a run away reaction. There's absolutely no need sacrifice environment in order to maintain a healthy economy. That is the rhetoric of the oil industry which is enjoy it's handsome profits. All "green" industries are high paying, high profit and high tech. Want to keep the economy steaming ahead? Want to increase national security through less dependence on foriegn oil? Simple switch to renewable self sustaining energies. Recycled Nukes in combination with bio fuels (ethanol), that's it. All of which are completely sustainable and best of all, readily available technologies that are available today, not 10, 20, 30 years down the road. We know 100 x more about running nuke facilities today then we did 20~30 years ago, the new reactors use 95% of the fuel instead of the current whimsy 3~5%. As for Ethanol, current rave is about ethanol from corn, the same methodology that is used in making beer. The new technology is simply make ethanol from nearly any carbohydrate, thus instead of the fruiting body of the plant, take the entire plant itself. IE the corn husk, stalk and all, which is usually burned wastefully.

 

[alphamale]

Why is Global warming rejected by policy makers?

Because they took liberals' advice and got religious ideas out of government! :lol:

 

[tecoyah]

Because they took liberals' advice and got religious ideas out of government! :lol:

I can only assume, based on your post history and general lack of knowledge, that you are attemting to correlate Climate Change with A Biblical end of the world scenario. If this is indeed the case....uh...I will take a page from your own book of skilled debate techniques:


Ahem...Bwaaahaaaaaahewheheheheeeeemwahhaahahahahaaaa....etc....


The seperation of Religion from state function is hardly a liberal tendency alone, though it would seem of late that the opposition to a Liberal mindset has become far more Christian in title than in previous decades. It seems to me Climate shifts have occured throughout the history of the Earth, to one degree or another, though it is understandable that you may not realize this if you believe the planet was made a By Some God several thousand years ago as this would force you to ignore the other 99.9% of historical evidence which points this out.
Likely the Government is not actually ignoring the phenomenon, but is rather more interested in short term economic stability at the expense of possible action to limit the long term effects of Human industry hastening the change, however small this impact might be. Perhaps this is a good start to our little debate there , Alphamale.....if you are up to it.

 

[DivineComedy]

I can only assume, based on your post history and general lack of knowledge, that you are attemting to correlate Climate Change with A Biblical end of the world scenario. If this is indeed the case....uh...I will take a page from your own book of skilled debate techniques:


Ahem...Bwaaahaaaaaahewheheheheeeeemwahhaahahahahaaaa....etc....


The seperation of Religion from state function is hardly a liberal tendency alone, though it would seem of late that the opposition to a Liberal mindset has become far more Christian in title than in previous decades. It seems to me Climate shifts have occured throughout the history of the Earth, to one degree or another, though it is understandable that you may not realize this if you believe the planet was made a By Some God several thousand years ago as this would force you to ignore the other 99.9% of historical evidence which points this out.
Likely the Government is not actually ignoring the phenomenon, but is rather more interested in short term economic stability at the expense of possible action to limit the long term effects of Human industry hastening the change, however small this impact might be. Perhaps this is a good start to our little debate there , Alphamale.....if you are up to it.

This is called stalking.

 

[tecoyah]

This is called stalking.

No....its called Calling someone out....Stalking generally means you actually like someone.

 

[alphamale]

First of all - Bwaaahaaaaaahewheheheheeeeemwahhaahahahahaaaa
:lol: 'Scuse me! :mrgreen: Tried to hold it in - couldn't!

The seperation of Religion from state function is hardly a liberal tendency alone, though it would seem of late that the opposition to a Liberal mindset has become far more Christian in title than in previous decades.

Uhhhh .... whadda you talking about - liberalism or seperation of church and state? Pick one.

It seems to me Climate shifts have occured throughout the history of the Earth, to one degree or another, though it is understandable that you may not realize this if you believe the planet was made a By Some God several thousand years ago as this would force you to ignore the other 99.9% of historical evidence which points this out.

Well, garsh, seeings howz I'm an agnostic I guess that spurt was pretty much irrelevent!

Likely the Government is not actually ignoring the phenomenon, but is rather more interested in short term economic stability at the expense of possible action to limit the long term effects of Human industry hastening the change, however small this impact might be. Perhaps this is a good start to our little debate there , Alphamale.....if you are up to it.

Up to what? Come back when you have something to debate. The "impact" may be so small as to be inconsequential, just background noise compared to more significant factors.

 

[tecoyah]

First of all - Bwaaahaaaaaahewheheheheeeeemwahhaahahahahaaaa
:lol: 'Scuse me! :mrgreen: Tried to hold it in - couldn't!



Uhhhh .... whadda you talking about - liberalism or seperation of church and state? Pick one.

I was addressing your post, in that claiming the "Liberals", are responsible for removing religion from Government, is accurate. That you failed to see the obvious reply is telling.



Well, garsh, seeings howz I'm an agnostic I guess that spurt was pretty much irrelevent!

Indeed....it is a null point then, there must be some other explanation for the Ignorance.



Up to what? Come back when you have something to debate. The "impact" may be so small as to be inconsequential, just background noise compared to more significant factors.

I believe I stated the undecided nature of human impact on climate change.....which again, it seems you failed to understand. If you actually tried to address what was typed, rather than flail around with weak sarcastic rebuttal, we might actually debate this issue. As it is you are far outclassed little boy, unless you feel you can do better than you have.

 

[alphamale]

I believe I stated the undecided nature of human impact on climate change.....which again, it seems you failed to understand. If you actually tried to address what was typed, rather than flail around with weak sarcastic rebuttal, we might actually debate this issue. As it is you are far outclassed little boy, unless you feel you can do better than you have.

Hey wait! No fair being the judge AND a debatee! (Burp! - sorry!) :2razz:

 

[tecoyah]

..........Case Rested...............

 

[Jay R]

Why is Global warming rejected by policy makers?

Good question, I'd have to say it falls down to two principle issues. The first is that if you acknowledge it then people are going to expect you, as their elected representative, to solve it, and that's just a whole lot of work your average politician doesn't want. As you correctly point out there are a lot of people, not just rich oil barons, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Changing the way America works, plays and the things people aspire to is no easy task, and certainly not one that's going to make you popular.

Look at the issue of cars. Even assuming you could put Hydrogen powered vehicles on the street tomorrow (BMW's hydrogen burning ICE prototypes perhaps?) whose gonna buy it? No one, unless you have the fuel supplied on every forecourt. Whose going to convince the gas stations and supermarkets to spend the money converting their equipment? No-one, unless they can see people with cars lining up for gas. What about the car makers, why would they put a Hydrogen motor into series production if there are no customers? They wouldn't. Or they might, but price it at $$$$'s above the cost of a petrol motor, fine for celebrities buying a new Prius, no good for Joe looking at an F-series Ford. To break the deadlock the government would have to dictate to it's citizens, businesses, and manufacturers exactly what they were allowed to produce, retail and consume. Most people don't like 'The Man' telling them what to do with their dollars.
So reason number one we can say is that for your average politician, just looking to keep his re-election prospects clean it's too much hard work to pursue environmental policies, and too likely to piss off voters, or worse financial backers.

Secondly, look at the structure of politics, its so short term, four or five years in office is nothing. Read up on modern political campaigning, particularly from American sources and you'll come across something called the perpetual campaign, it developed in the 80's with Reagan/Thatcher but is a standard now on both sides of the Atlantic. Basically, politicians are only concerned with winning their next elections, the taxpayers salary is what pays their bills after all, so their focus is naturally drawn to current issues to which they can provide a quick fix, look good for the cameras, and pull in the good headlines. Long term issues like Global warming are no good because in their minds, if they spend their time in office on that then they'll never see the return on it as the benefits and improvements take time to appear. By then our politician could have been voted out and replaced by the guy who offered to deport some immigrants and give people a tax break.
So reason two is that the way the system works makes Environmentalism an undesireable and unstable platform for a politician to place his career on.

What do you think?

 

[jfuh]

Why is Global warming rejected by policy makers?

Good question, I'd have to say it falls down to two principle issues. The first is that if you acknowledge it then people are going to expect you, as their elected representative, to solve it, and that's just a whole lot of work your average politician doesn't want. As you correctly point out there are a lot of people, not just rich oil barons, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Changing the way America works, plays and the things people aspire to is no easy task, and certainly not one that's going to make you popular.

Look at the issue of cars. Even assuming you could put Hydrogen powered vehicles on the street tomorrow (BMW's hydrogen burning ICE prototypes perhaps?) whose gonna buy it? No one, unless you have the fuel supplied on every forecourt. Whose going to convince the gas stations and supermarkets to spend the money converting their equipment? No-one, unless they can see people with cars lining up for gas. What about the car makers, why would they put a Hydrogen motor into series production if there are no customers? They wouldn't. Or they might, but price it at $$$$'s above the cost of a petrol motor, fine for celebrities buying a new Prius, no good for Joe looking at an F-series Ford. To break the deadlock the government would have to dictate to it's citizens, businesses, and manufacturers exactly what they were allowed to produce, retail and consume. Most people don't like 'The Man' telling them what to do with their dollars.
So reason number one we can say is that for your average politician, just looking to keep his re-election prospects clean it's too much hard work to pursue environmental policies, and too likely to piss off voters, or worse financial backers.

Secondly, look at the structure of politics, its so short term, four or five years in office is nothing. Read up on modern political campaigning, particularly from American sources and you'll come across something called the perpetual campaign, it developed in the 80's with Reagan/Thatcher but is a standard now on both sides of the Atlantic. Basically, politicians are only concerned with winning their next elections, the taxpayers salary is what pays their bills after all, so their focus is naturally drawn to current issues to which they can provide a quick fix, look good for the cameras, and pull in the good headlines. Long term issues like Global warming are no good because in their minds, if they spend their time in office on that then they'll never see the return on it as the benefits and improvements take time to appear. By then our politician could have been voted out and replaced by the guy who offered to deport some immigrants and give people a tax break.
So reason two is that the way the system works makes Environmentalism an undesireable and unstable platform for a politician to place his career on.

What do you think?

Very true. Global warming is not an imminent threat. Ppl do not feel it to be of grave concern because too hot, well turn on the a/c, too cold, turn on the boiler.
The wacko's on the right have managed to make environmentalists look like tree hugging pot smoking hippies that have no real idea of what's going on in the world.
There are those that say: "look you can spout all you want about Global warming, but you're not going to be able to do anything about it unless you spend trillions of dollars and even then we still don't know what affect if any it will make positively"
That's just greed and ignorance speaking.
1. What purpose will your money serve in a world that you can no longer live in, when all the natural beauties of this planet are no longer?
2. None of us are saying to flip over your life to any extent, just that you realize that this is a problem that we humans are responsible for and to take action such as alternative renewable energy sources, energy conservation, and so on so as to level off the problem first and then focus on reforestation and other ecological measures to restore to pre-industrial levels of polution.

These are perfectly plausible.
The root of our current global state of social unrest, terrorism all stems from former nations greed, raping of poorer and underdeveloped nations.
Africa is the mess it is today because of former european power houses colonizing and enslaving. The middle east is the same way with GB causing havok, completely disrespecting the ppls of that place. Then WWI and WWII with again western powers going into that region yet again fighting for energy resources with complete disregard as to what kind of dictator is installed as long as they keep our oil flowing.

There are those who still insist that the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror (well it is now). SO then why the hell did we not invade Saudi Arabia? UAA? Yemen? These are the countries that the terrorists came from and that we also know harbor terrorists as well. Though the UAA is indeed a different story; but not the Saudi Royals.

It's just another war over energy, nothing else. There are those whom say the invasion over Iraq was to over throw a bruttal dictator, so why are we not in Darfur yet? Why did we ignore Rawanda?

All about energy, nothing more. The only invasion that this administration started right was that with Afganistan. But wait, where the hell is OBL? Obviously, we don't seem to pressed on that one right now.

When will ppl realize that the faster we switch to liquid fuels such as ethanol, butanol (which btw are much more efficient then gasoline - higher octane), the sooner that we can stop rediculous energy geared policies towards the middle east and begin real peace missions?
Energy is the real cause of global unrest right now. Everything else is just fear tactics and electorial pleasers for those that can't see over the horizon.

 

[Jay R]

Things are changing, but far too slowly. The fact that increasingly my generation is concerned by Environmental issues is a start, but the real difficulty is going to be getting some people with both genuine Environmental policies and all the other policies necessary for government into office. Look at what we're getting in Britain right now, new Conservative leader David Cameron cycles to the House of Commons and that gives him the right to call himself an Environmentalist? A Lexus drives in behind him with his aid to bring him his briefcase and spare shoes for God's sake!:doh

 

[jfuh]

Things are changing, but far too slowly. The fact that increasingly my generation is concerned by Environmental issues is a start, but the real difficulty is going to be getting some people with both genuine Environmental policies and all the other policies necessary for government into office. Look at what we're getting in Britain right now, new Conservative leader David Cameron cycles to the House of Commons and that gives him the right to call himself an Environmentalist? A Lexus drives in behind him with his aid to bring him his briefcase and spare shoes for God's sake!:doh

Lol, well it's a Lexus and not a RR so more fuel efficient that's probably why he dares claim to be an environmentalist.

Education and concern are the starting point. But we must move on from simply that.
I've taken active steps of my own, not only out of environmental concern, but just practical sense.
Put in a solar pre-heater for my house's hot water system, insulated the exterior walls with Rf: 40 fiber glass which in combination has lowered my monthly utilities for a 3500sq-ft house from $300 down to at most $150 in during the coldest months. It just makes sense.
Next up, solar panals for partial electricity.

 

[alphamale]

Global Warming isn't rejected by many, the unproven thesis that it's significantly due to human activity is what is rejected, and consequently the ecofascism that is the left-wing's "solution" to this "problem". In fact, global warming probably has some good consequences, such as making some previously unihabitable areas habitable. That ecofascists have never accounted for this side of the issue makes them even less credible. The record of ecofascists in confiscation of land and interruption of many peoples' lives for questionable reasons gives them a bad reputation coming in. The answer to the OP question is obvious - people aren't about to devastate their lives based on the unproven theories of people with a bad reputation and bad "solutions". Get it?

 

[jfuh]

Global Warming isn't rejected by many, the unproven thesis that it's significantly due to human activity is what is rejected, and consequently the ecofascism that is the left-wing's "solution" to this "problem".

And just what are these solutions that you seem to have such a problem with?

In fact, global warming probably has some good consequences, such as making some previously unihabitable areas habitable. That ecofascists have never accounted for this side of the issue makes them even less credible.

SUch as which regions? Do you even know of the consequences of global warming?

The record of ecofascists in confiscation of land and interruption of many peoples' lives for questionable reasons gives them a bad reputation coming in.

Who are these ecofascists? What land have they confiscated? How have they interrupted ppl's lives? And who's lives?

The answer to the OP question is obvious - people aren't about to devastate their lives based on the unproven theories of people with a bad reputation and bad "solutions". Get it?

Again what are these solutions that you seem perplexed about?

 

[Jay R]

Global Warming isn't rejected by many, the unproven thesis that it's significantly due to human activity is what is rejected, and consequently the ecofascism that is the left-wing's "solution" to this "problem".

That's true, most of them are just too damn ignorant to care. Why should alphamale care what state the world is in after he dies? He isn't gonna be around to worry, as for others: "Born too late? Well that's too bad!" :rofl

In fact, global warming probably has some good consequences, such as making some previously unihabitable areas habitable.

:rofl Oh man, you really are priceless alpha. Recent droughts and famine are pushing millions towards starvation in at least three places in Africa that I can think of right now. Somalia, *****, Mauritania. I guess that's no problem though, it's not like those people can swim the Atlantic and become a problem on your doorstep. I guess you'd say: "Not born American? That's too bad!"

The answer to the OP question is obvious - people aren't about to devastate their lives based on the unproven theories of people with a bad reputation and bad "solutions".

'Devastate their lives'? By asking them to turn off televisions? By asking them to car-share? :rofl Eco-Fascist's, that's a good one.

(OMG:shock: The site won't let me post *****? It's a capital 'N' and a single 'G', a country in Western Africa. I'm lodging a complaint about that, it ain't my responsibility if people can't read properly, are rascists or just stupid.)http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019744981886

 

[alphamale]

And just what are these solutions that you seem to have such a problem with?


SUch as which regions? Do you even know of the consequences of global warming?


Who are these ecofascists? What land have they confiscated? How have they interrupted ppl's lives? And who's lives?

Again what are these solutions that you seem perplexed about?

Did I say I was "perplexed"? Uh, no. Either you are playing dumb, or you actually are. In the latter case, go read up on the Kyoto protocols and their consequences, and then come back. I'm not running a tutoring service.

 

[Gill]

Oh man, you really are priceless alpha. Recent droughts and famine are pushing millions towards starvation in at least three places in Africa that I can think of right now. Somalia, *****, Mauritania. I guess that's no problem though, it's not like those people can swim the Atlantic and become a problem on your doorstep. I guess you'd say: "Not born American? That's too bad!"

That's one (of many) problems with global warming fanatics. No matter what weather condition happens, it is the fault of global warming to you. Do you actually think there were no droughts prior to 1900?? Were there no floods before 1900?? Were there no famines before 1900??

Drought, flood, blizzards, hot, cold, on and on ad nauseum... it's all the fault of global warming to you.. and by extension man and especially the US.

 

[jfuh]

Did I say I was "perplexed"? Uh, no. Either you are playing dumb, or you actually are. In the latter case, go read up on the Kyoto protocols and their consequences, and then come back. I'm not running a tutoring service.

Kyoto is the only thing you've got? And how is Kyoto taking land? How does Kyoto not work? What's an alternative? should there be an alternative? Interesting you haven't answered a single question I've asked you.

 

[jfuh]

That's one (of many) problems with global warming fanatics. No matter what weather condition happens, it is the fault of global warming to you. Do you actually think there were no droughts prior to 1900?? Were there no floods before 1900?? Were there no famines before 1900??

Drought, flood, blizzards, hot, cold, on and on ad nauseum... it's all the fault of global warming to you.. and by extension man and especially the US.

The way to which you have responded shows just how little you are willing to admit of the consequences of global warming.
Can you show some science to back up your bs claim that global warming does not cause such significant climate changes??

 

[Jay R]

That's one (of many) problems with global warming fanatics. No matter what weather condition happens, it is the fault of global warming to you. Do you actually think there were no droughts prior to 1900?? Were there no floods before 1900?? Were there no famines before 1900??

Drought, flood, blizzards, hot, cold, on and on ad nauseum... it's all the fault of global warming to you.. and by extension man and especially the US.

"It's better to be safe than sorry". Sage advice that I like to try and bear in mind. Being concerned and wanting to understand the issue and if possible limit it's effect does not make me a 'global warming fanatic'. And of course there has been every variety of weather affecting someplace at some time, but it concerns me that such events may be increasing, especially if that increase is due to human activity, because these events certainly impact on human society. The only problem with your attitude as I see it is that you are unwilling to consider a possible threat, try applying that logic to another issue. How about "There were terrorists before September 11th why should we be concerned any more than we were back then?" its a head in the sand attitude, just because a problem is old doesn't mean it should be taken as a fact of life and ignored. Don't get me wrong, if in a couple of hundred years time global warming still hasn't wreaked devastation you will be perfectly entitled to say you told me so. But if it has then the only thing either of us will be saying is aww crap, if only we had been more careful.

As for the accusation that Environmentalism is just a stick to beat the US with, you should be aware that the US already has such a high level of industrialisation that it's energy and resource consumption levels are at a peak. Increasing efficiencies now simply reduces the US's contribution to pollution levels, I honestly can't see why anyone in the US would be opposed to them. The biggest problem is in fact the developing 'big three': Brazil, China and India. Each is potentially going to match or exceed the US pollution and thus they are of greater significance than the US as they'll easily quadruple the total level of emmissions worldwide.

 

[jfuh]

"It's better to be safe than sorry". Sage advice that I like to try and bear in mind. Being concerned and wanting to understand the issue and if possible limit it's effect does not make me a 'global warming fanatic'. And of course there has been every variety of weather affecting someplace at some time, but it concerns me that such events may be increasing, especially if that increase is due to human activity, because these events certainly impact on human society. The only problem with your attitude as I see it is that you are unwilling to consider a possible threat, try applying that logic to another issue. How about "There were terrorists before September 11th why should we be concerned any more than we were back then?" its a head in the sand attitude, just because a problem is old doesn't mean it should be taken as a fact of life and ignored. Don't get me wrong, if in a couple of hundred years time global warming still hasn't wreaked devastation you will be perfectly entitled to say you told me so. But if it has then the only thing either of us will be saying is aww crap, if only we had been more careful.

As for the accusation that Environmentalism is just a stick to beat the US with, you should be aware that the US already has such a high level of industrialisation that it's energy and resource consumption levels are at a peak. Increasing efficiencies now simply reduces the US's contribution to pollution levels, I honestly can't see why anyone in the US would be opposed to them. The biggest problem is in fact the developing 'big three': Brazil, China and India. Each is potentially going to match or exceed the US pollution and thus they are of greater significance than the US as they'll easily quadruple the total level of emmissions worldwide.

Make that the big two. Brazil now is on the verge of becoming completely independent of not just foreign oil imports, but also from fossil fuels all together.
China and India are of the gravest concern right as neither not only have no enforcement of greenhouse gases, but also little or no clean air/water laws nor enforcement.

The US contirbutes to 25% of the world's emissions and is by far the largest contributor to greenhouse gases. Which is why if we want to curb any such effects the US will be of the greatest contributor to these efforts.

 

[Jay R]

I stand corrected. I was aware of their joint hydroelectric project with Argentina, formerly the biggest HE dam in the world before Three Gorges, but I'm not fully aware of the rest of their energy policy. How have they managed that?

 

[jfuh]

I stand corrected. I was aware of their joint hydroelectric project with Argentina, formerly the biggest HE dam in the world before Three Gorges, but I'm not fully aware of the rest of their energy policy. How have they managed that?

By not allowing thier governmental policies to be dictated by oil tycoons. Realizing that renewable energy and environmental clauses contribute to further economic growth of the high tech sector then continued reliance on oil. By siding on precaution, common, sense and science over money and politics.

 

[Jay R]

Alright I'm sure that's the sentiment, but what are the processes they are using to achieve it? Like I said they have HE, how much of their requirement is that fulfilling? And what other energy sources are they using, surely its not 100% HE?