Activity


  • By Yvette D’entremont
    Being the conscientious and considerate person that you are, you’re trying to be an environmentally friendly consumer. You read on the internet that farming is part of the problem, so you s […]

    • Al Gore did very much to raise the red flag for global warming and climate change. But, he was a “limousine liberal”. This is the trouble with many of the “environmentalist” folks. They espouse the right opinions while violating the very tenets they want others to adhere to.

      Case in point, Al Gore flew coast to coast and intercontinentally on a private jet while he told me to ride my fucking bike to work. I live one mile from my parking spot at work…. one mile. His crusade actually added probably a BILLION times more carbon to the atmosphere than I have collectively in my entire life.

      This clear “do as i say not as i do” mentality weakens the cause and dilutes the message.

      The other axe i have to grind revolves around performing acts or terrorism in the name of “saving some thing you hold dear” or “raising awareness for some cause you believe in”… If we all did that, we’d be the republican party. Do your shit the right way. The peaceful and well thought out way. Be a beacon for how to get shit done the right way. WRONG IS WRONG EVEN IF IT HELPS YOU.

    • I take on board the clever jabs at celebrities who pound their chests and sound off like Tarzan about their commitment to environmental virtues while over-consuming and leaving a carbon footprint like King Kong.
      The blindside to the yucking up is that the little people contribute much more in their collective resource consumption, pollution, environmental destruction and carbon footprints than a handful of profligate giants of stardom.

      We all drive ICE cars, heat our homes in winter and cool them in summer, and book multiple jet airline flights annually. It does not take a statistical genius to calculate average per capita consumption and pollution measurements given accurate data for a specific population class. Aspirations for higher standards of living probably infects over 95% of the world’s people, especially the 70% or so who live in poverty, near poverty or downright shabby austerity. It does not take a statistical genius to recognize that the most decisive way to reduce per capita consumption and pollution is to reduce global population.

    • Forget Bitcoin or the Pound Sterling / US Dollar exchange rate. There’s a new currency in town that can trade with all the majors. Grand Children. Every decision you make, every breath you take, determines whether you are killing your grand children or saving them. On a scale from -10 to +10, your decisions are measured. The cost of those decisions have consequences. If you a profligate user and waster of the world’s resources, you are killing your grand children. Despite the digs from the article, if you are trying to live a small footprint on planet earth, then you are saving your grand children. I darn my socks. A way of thinking.

      The celebrity environmentalist has a place. Sadly, it should be self evident that the way we run the planet now is not sustainable, and every homo sapiens on the planet, being born with the potential to deduce rational decisions, should automatically be supporting a drive to have the planet sustainable and civilized for the next 1000 years. But sadly… when “god” grabbed that hunk of clay, it was defective and most of humanity including the rich western world, aren’t capable of making decisions with a use by date greater than 7 days. But these same people are star struck by celebrities. So if Leonardo says it, it must be good. All power to the message.

      To his credit, Al Gore put global warming on the map for Americans. The rest of the civilized world new global warming was already a problem, but the Americans didn’t. With all his flaws and the defects in an Inconvenient Truth, he still firmly put global warming on the American political agenda. To his credit.

    • @Crooked #3

      None of us are doing ALL we can—I can almost guarantee it. And some of that (a big part, in my book) is because the footprint-friendly options just aren’t as readily available as we’d all like to see, and those that are usually cost more.

      Still, my hat goes off to Gore for bringing the dialogue to the national ‘table.’ And DiCaprio is hosting a special on Oct 30. I look forward to seeing if it adds to the discussion. We need these guys to keep our attention on the issue. I hope they keep it up.

      http://www.ecowatch.com/leonardo-dicaprio-before-the-flood-2062971522.html

    • Vicki,

      I get it, really, I do. And, perhaps surprisingly, I agree with you. I also agree, wholeheartedly, that everyone (with me in the lead) could and should be doing more. The men and women who head up “the face” of this could easily loan their fame to something else and for their time and effort, I am respectfully thankful. The thing is, we could and should employ technology to offset the things I pointed out in my earlier post because I think it gives fodder for the other side to be (correctly) critical. I just think there are better ways and setting an example is a quite powerful way to support a cause.

    • “Contrary to rumors, organic farming uses pesticides”. Pesticide-free is the very definition of organic. People eat organically because it is gentler on the environment not just for their personal health. This woman presented no evidence for her counter-intuitive statements.

      There are so many anti-environmentalists: Republicans, corporate drones, talk show hosts, gun nuts… pretty well everyone else deserves to be called an honourary environmentalist.

    • greenpeace is on the front line
      mistakes are made on front lines
      but they are the boots on the ground
      and boats in the arctic
      taking on gazprom for publicity is dangerous
      more power to them
      this cosmo article sucks

    • Je suis Al Gore et Leonardo Di Caprio. I’m a primate too..just a helluva lot cleaner than those hypocritical sons of bitches.

    • A good corrective, bonnie.

    • Environmentalists are false prophets until they recognize the root cause of the “problems” they complain about. Environmental degradation in all its antrhopogenic manifestations remains mired in the systemic overbreeding of human populations. Human nature loves to dramatize and aggrandize the importance of our narcississtic role played out center stage at the center of the universe. We seldom glimpse ourselves as another animal endowed with uniquely inventive power to produce monstrous filth befouling the entire planet – land, water and sky.

      The perennial delusion: If only “others” would follow the lead of our starstruck sanitized super-heroes, Al and Leonardo, then they and their redeemed fans could -dare I say it- save the world.

    • @Melvin #15

      Melvin, you’re badly off-target describing Leonardo and Al as false prophets. They have each correctly attributed the cause of climate change to our carbon emissions. Neither of them promote the delusional belief that population controls can meaningfully assist. That seems to be a diversion or delaying tactic employed by those who religiously fail to recognize the urgency to act now.

      Critics exhibiting contempt for those who argue in support of the climate scientists are politically motivated Deniers, or are simply envious. Gore and di Caprio do appreciate the urgency. Deniers frequently call them “warmists” and self-describe their obstinate ignorance as being scepticism. Excessive population is also a problem, but one that will self-correct with education.

    • Melvin #15
      Oct 28, 2016 at 1:26 am

      Environmentalists are false prophets until they recognize the root cause of the “problems” they complain about. Environmental degradation in all its antrhopogenic manifestations remains mired in the systemic overbreeding of human populations.

      We have been over this before.
      While over-population is a serious problem, it is levels of (mainly industrial) pollution and levels of consumption, which are the direct causes of climate change and environmental damage.
      Population levels are only indirect causes, and are in proportion to their levels of consumption and pollution.
      Many populations have a very low impact per head of population in comparison to others.

    • it is levels of (mainly industrial) pollution and levels of consumption, which are the direct causes of climate change and environmental damage.
      Population levels are only indirect causes, and are in proportion to their levels of consumption and pollution.

      Replacing “indirect” with “direct” we’d be saying the same thing. Levels of industrial pollution have been dramatically reduced going forward from the 1970s with inventions of cleaner and cleaner technology and environmental clean-up projects. The impact of overconsumption, if not the “levels” themselves, has also been
      sharply reduced, but increasing global populations and the emergence of high-production, high[er] consumption, high-growth economies in developing world giants like China has not only retarded progress but also prolifereated pollution, resource depletion, CO2 emissions on a global scale.

      We humans -and I mean everyone including myself- put our immediate needs and the needs of family and friends first. We bond more dilutely with larger reference groups: community, state, nation and geopolitical allies. More generally we are programmed like all intelligent animal species to identify intimately with our own kind, placing ourselves mythologically at the center of the universe. Capable of language and strong emotional connections we have developed justifiable imperatives like “preserving, nourishing, and prolonging precious human life” that implement human, especially our own personal needs and interests; activities and projects at the expense of long-term sustainable environments. If collectively we choose to overbreed, the “precious human lives” spreading out over more and more of the Earth’s inhabitable or desirable territory will see to it that their needs, and desires for an ever higher standard of living are met whatever the exploitation of the environment.

      Paradoxically, our conviction of the “precious-priceless value” of human life juxtaposed with our destructive collective animal behavior internalizes a stubborn sense of embarassment about “telling couples how many children to have” underscoring anthropocentric oblivion to what we are clearly doing to our planet. We should turn away from idealizing “stars” who excite our dramatic imaginations when they hypocritically advocate conservation, abstinence or frugal consumption while they promote a sumptuous lifestyle fans effectively strive to emulate worldwide.

    • Quarecuss

      greenpeace is on the front line

      mistakes are made on front lines

      Too many for me. I had to leave them. They get in their own way as idealists, rather than pragmatic engineers of social change. Oppositional forces are more rapidly overcome if co-opted into an evolutionary path, so their own resources can be progressively diverted to the good. This means having plans for oil and gas companies in transition.

      They consistently fail to see how invention in business models are the levers that need more pulling. Greenpeace should be advocating quite general economic reform policies (favouring long term invetments and compound business formation) rather than bitty green-branded, bonds and institutions.

      This shouldn’t be about add-ons but grander infrastructure change that allows value to be more fully realised over greater spans of time and across multiple commercial endeavours. It should embrace entirely, sustainability as the over-arching imperative and seek to promote the circular economy as the new paradigm.

      http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/about/our-manifesto-20091009

    • @Rocket888 #23

      I do not own a car; I live 1.6 miles from work, and usually walk. However, in inclement weather I take the bus. I actually have to allow myself more time to take the bus, because of run times and routes.

      Mass transportation (at least where I live) is so inconvenient I can’t imagine why anyone would use it if they didn’t have to.

    • Vicki #24
      Oct 31, 2016 at 6:50 pm

      I suppose I am particularly fortunate in my choice of home.
      We have 8 buses per hour to town through our village during the day, with them branching out to get there via three different routes.

    • @Alan #25

      Out of curiosity, have you used any of them, and if so, did you time the difference between mass trans and a personal vehicle?

      It’s a peeve with me: if mass trans could be more user-friendly, would it be possible to get some of the vehicles off the road? Would it improve road wear-and-tear? Congestion? Air quality? Insurance rates? Accident rates?

    • Vicki #26
      Nov 1, 2016 at 4:20 pm

      Out of curiosity, have you used any of them, and if so, did you time the difference between mass trans and a personal vehicle?

      They usually take about half an hour to town, except when traffic is dire in rush hours. Because we have so many, if they are running late, you can sometimes catch the previous one running late in place of the planned one.
      It is also much easier to get one back out of town, as they all leave from the same main bus station, whereas in the village the stops are on different streets.

      As far as comparisons with a car goes, that depends on the time of day. At off-peak times a car is faster, but in rush-hours the buses have designated priority lanes, so they bypass the jams and are quicker. There can also be problems with finding pay parking spaces in town, although there is not this problem with out of town shopping centres and shopping malls which have their own car parks.

      In the UK there are also free bus passes for pensioners to use at off-peak times.

      When I work in town I use the bus and do not worry about parking.
      I also do small easy to carry shopping in the market or department stores in town.

      For big shopping, I drive to the out of town shopping malls or retail sites.

      We also have small village shops, a post-office, 2 bank machines, two convenience stores, 3 takeaways (Fish and chips, Indian, Chinese) , a dentist, a doctors, a hairdressers, a cafe, an Italian restaurant, and 3 pubs, within easy walking distance. The nearest farm is about half a mile away.

      We do not have direct access to metro-trains or main-line trains, but the buses connect with one intercity mainline station and three Metro-stations.
      The Metro trains also connect to the airport.

      I did pick the location carefully when I bought my house.

    • Worst article I have read in months. Hateful. Godawful. Sounds like Rush Limbaugh on steroids. She has everything backwards. Cosmopolitan. No wonder.

      Grass fed, free-range meat is better. More humane treatment and it doesn’t have all those hormones. Organic vegetables aren’t sprayed with all those chemicals.

      Vitamin A (Beta Carotene), which is mentioned in the piece, causes cancer, and, yes, is good for the eyes. Research this stuff before you start stuffing your face with vitamin A. (Right, Steven 007?)

      PETA kills animals? Blame the organization for what it is trying to prevent. Typical.

      DiCaprio. He’s a professional actor – and a very good one. He has spoken out on the environment. So what?

      I like Gore.

      I will say this: the importance of recycling is misleading. Every little bit does not help – very much. This is a governmental problem we’re dealing with. You can save paper; but the timber industry is going to do what it does. Save gas; the fossil fuel industry is still going to do what it does. And some products are marked “organic” and shouldn’t be; that’s a marketing gimmick. There is a lot of that I am sure.

      We need evidence, not diatribes and more conspiracy theories.

      This article should never have been published. It is biased. (Oh yes! That’s precisely why it was published!)

    • Alan4discussion #27 Your entire post

      I’m jealous. 🙁

    • Re: Yvette d’eEntremont

      Here is some stuff about this corrupt woman who wrote this slimy article. It’s taken from a blogger who calls herself “Food Babe”. (Vani Hari) I trust her. I trust “food babe”. She has feuded with d’entremont, who calls herself “science babe”. I don’t trust “science babe”.

      She is undoubtedly pro-chemical and pro-GMO and has proven this fact over and over again but her background might be the most convincing. Her name is Yvette d’Entremont and when she started the “Science Babe” facebook page and business, she worked for Amvac Chemical, as reported in the Seattle Times, “Amvac Chemical in Los Angeles has found a profitable — and controversial — niche by buying manufacturing rights to older pesticides, many of them at risk of being banned or restricted because of safety concerns”. Yes, you read that right, a company that sells dangerous and unsafe chemicals for profit.

      And here’s a letter Ms. Hari received and presented on her blog, for what it’s worth:

      After she [d’eEntremont] started her blog, she reportedly was terminated from Amvac. See email below I received from her ex-colleague here:

      “Dear Vani, I am a research professional of some standing and for that reason I have chosen to use an assumed name. I have been following the progress of Yvette Guinevere d’Entremont (aka ScienceBabe) with some interest as she is a former colleague. I would like to impart some interesting information to you, which may use this for whatever purpose you see fit. What I am about to tell you is easily verifiable. Good science is based on producing original work and publishing in a peer reviewed context, self published armchair science as scibabe.com is peddling gives science a bad name. Taking swipes at the work and opinions of others is not science, unless you have original data that draws other work into question. What makes you and her different is that you don’t claim to be a scientist. If you have solid reasoning, you don’t need to be vitriolic in your posts as science babe is, with much of her abuse directed towards you. Some colleagues and I do not feel this is appropriate, we don’t like bullying, and so here are several easily verifiable facts about science babe that you may wish to point out to her next time you appear in her twitter/blog crosshairs: 1) Yvette Guinevere d’Entremont has no peer reviewed scientific publications. 2) Her master’s thesis from Anglia Ruskin University was not deemed of sufficient quality for publication. 3) Her claim that she was a college professor is laughable, she was an assistant instructor (one level above a TA) at Emmanuel College in Boston for less than 1 year. 4) She is currently being terminated from her position at Amvac for her activities on Scibabe. A description from a senior colleague on seeing Scibabe.com perhaps sums her up best “she’s not a scientist, she’s a professional button pressor for a scientific company. I could have a talented undergraduate doing her job in less than 2 days”. For obvious reasons I’m not going to put a name to that quote. There’s nothing I’ve revealed here that can’t be easily verified. If I can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to get in touch via the email I have listed on this page. Kind regards.”

    • Dan #31

      I don’t trust “science babe”.

      It looks like you have identified “pseudo-science babe”!

      As you would see @#1 she has invented a strawman caricature environmentalist in this article.

    • Bonnie #21

      I watched DiCaprio’s special; it was more alarmist than informational. But I guess that was the goal.

      There was only one very small segment on a single manufacturer (Tesla) who was operating based on a global climate threat. I would have liked to have seen more. And there was the alarmist approach to shifting populations, but no mention of overpopulation.

      I like the idea of a carbon tax. Nothing gets your attention faster than money.

      It is inconceivable to me that a presidential candidate can have climate denial as one of his planks.

    • Inconceivable, Bonnie? Really?
      Alarmist?
      “Hey, an asteroid’s about to hit us!”
      “You’re such an alarmist!”
      😉

    • Sorry. Meant Vickie.
      Alarmism has its place. People are like ostriches.
      Information is good too. But Gore and others gave us that. We still have Trump and his supporters.

    • Vicki #33
      Nov 1, 2016 at 8:15 pm

      It is inconceivable to me that a presidential candidate can have climate denial as one of his planks.

      As in “As thick as two short planks!” 🙂

    • Alan #37

      One of the neglected points in DiCaprio’s documentary was overpopulation. He talks to some Indians about their immediate needs vs global warming, and not once is India’s population mentioned as part of the problem.

      I will concede that first-world consumption is the root cause, and the need to switch over to renewable energy is the single most important action needed to minimize the damage, but overpopulation, IMO, is also a huge part of the needed corrective action.

      And I still say implement a carbon tax. The sooner the better.

    • Vicki,

      Currently it takes ten Indians to out emit an American. Rich Indians will not begin to match the average American in emissions and will have careers and modest family sizes. Poor Indians, the one’s with burgeoning families will remain comparatively modest in atmospheric global impact and are not as collectively burdensome except for needing humanitarian help.

    • Phil

      All true, which I willingly concede. But that is not my point; my concern is the impact of overpopulation on global warming.

      If you watched the video, the first part implied the use of coal for much-needed electricity for 1.25 billion people. The need would be proportionately less for a smaller population. And I would stress that applies in any country, including the U.S.

      Remember too, that the world’s coastlines are also the most heavily populated. As the sea level rises, migration will become an issue, as will droughts in agricultural economies.

    • Vicki, I understand those concerns of low lying land which are exactly the tragedy awaiting the poor. The rich live in safer more expensive (and elevated) areas. But-

      CO2 is entirely a rich person’s fault and a poor person’s problem….wherever they live in the world.

      Population growth now is a temporary product of improved health and an ongoing product of poverty. This latter a generous response from the rich could solve. Allowing more menial manufacturing jobs to go to the poor overseas is the fastest way to bring an end to grinding poverty and drop birthrates. Unequal countries like the US and UK could allow this to happen if they took much better care of their own (voting!) poorer folk. The uber rich in the rich countries are the key to all of this. Their recent theft of an unfair share of the pie (from Reagan and Thatcher onwards) IS our stumbling block to fixing the planet in a timely manner.

    • Phil

      You are 100% correct, dad gummit.

      Except: I’d say the stumbling block isn’t so much the theft, as their unwillingness to admit it and atone for it.

    • Vicki

      their unwillingness to admit it and atone for it.

      Exactly so! Much nicer analysis.

    • They also have plans to export electricity to Britain and Germany though under-sea cables.

      Over 12TWh pa from 2021 via an HVDC link. The plan existed long ago but was considered too expensive or too lossy. New HVDC technology resurrected it, delivering high performance at low enough cost.

      A half sized cable, Icelink, bringing hydro and geothermal from Iceland looks increasingly likely. If successful we might see a substantial uplift in geothermal production from Iceland and the start of installing wind turbines. Wind resources on the island are huge but untapped having something of a local glut of energy.

      Currently aluminium companies use most of the power and have Iceland over a barrel. Timely sales to the UK allow them to get better value for the power and provide a bargaining tool to increase returns. Higher returns means more infrastructure investment.

    • VICKI: Phil
      All true, which I willingly concede. But that is not my point; my concern is the impact of overpopulation on global warming.
      If you watched the video, the first part implied the use of coal for much-needed electricity for 1.25 billion people. The need would be proportionately less for a smaller population. And I would stress that applies in any country, including the U.S.
      Remember too, that the world’s coastlines are also the most heavily populated. As the sea level rises, migration will become an issue, as will droughts in agricultural economies.

      Later that day… Phil
      You are 100% correct, dad gummit.

      You were 100% correct in your first comment. Nobody notices the elephant in the room of the developing world because thousands of miles away they live on a tiny fairytale island with a once big navy and and guilt lingering from empire. Talking about battery powered cars in Norway (5.2 million people), power cables from Iceland (333,000 people) putting a dent in global warming should shake up someone’s commonsense on proportion. We’ve seen China grow from dirt poverty in our lifetime to become the world’s largest economy and overtake the United States to become the world’s biggest asshole polluter. It’s naive (and unfair) to believe that India (and Sub-Saharan Africa) will not join the race , fueling economic growth with huge coal reserves or coal imports.

      Vicki, You’re right, you’re right – stand up and fight!

    • Solar power will always seem to be the fastest growing new energy source for the same reason that 2 + 2 = 4.
      Simple mathematics. Starting from a base of zero “0” working with integers a doubling of 1 to 2 will represent a 100% growth rate. Here is an excerpt from an Australian government study of coal in India up through 2014:

      39
      INDIA’S ELECTRICITY AND COAL MARKETS
      Coal consumption
      India is the world’s third largest coal consumer behind China and the United
      States; and the share of coal in India’s electricity mix has been rising. In
      2013 India’s coal consumption was estimated at 790 million tonnes (or 516
      million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce), around 10 per cent less than the
      United States (IEA 2014f). Thermal coal accounts for around 85 per cent, or
      665 million tonnes, of India’s coal consumption. Metallurgical coal (80 million
      tonnes) and lignite (45 million tonnes) make up the balance.
      The power sector accounts for more than 70 per cent of India’s coal use and
      supported a five-fold increase in coal use in electricity generation over the
      past few decades. As such, the power sector is clearly central to the coal
      outlook in India. India’s steel production has increased by around 25 per cent
      over the past five years to around 83 million tonnes in 2014. The cement
      industry, the second largest globally after China, is also a major coal user,
      accounting for around 5 per cent of total coal use. Other industrial sectors,
      including brick manufacture, consume small quantities of coal.
      Coal-fired generation
      India has invested heavily in new coal-fired generation over the past few
      decades to support its rapid growth in electricity consumption (figure 13).
      The rate of growth in India’s coal-fired generation capacity has accelerated
      since 2008 with installed capacity almost doubling in just six years. India’s
      coal-fired capacity is located close to large demand centres with around 42
      per cent of capacity located in the western region, 27 per cent in the north
      and 18 per cent in the south (figure 14). Unlike many OECD countries,
      India’s installed capacity is relatively new and has many years of operational
      use remaining.

      Costly construction of grid infrastructure stems from endemic government failures to finance and build enough transmission lines to keep up with coal-fired generation capacity. About 300 million Indians have no access to electricity roughly 5 times the population of the UK.

      The Washington Post reported: India, the third-largest emitter of greenhouses gases after China and the United States, has taken steps to address climate change in advance of the global talks in Paris this year — pledging a steep increase in renewable energy by 2030.
      But India’s leaders say that the huge challenge of extending electric service to its citizens means a hard reality — that the country must continue to increase its fossil fuel consumption, at least in the near term, on a path that could mean a threefold increase in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030, according to some estimates.

      The current desperation is not caused by a shortage of rural experiments but by people, people – too many people.

    • Melvin

      the country must continue to increase its fossil fuel consumption, at least in the near term, on a path that could mean a threefold increase in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030, according to some estimates.

      And?

      Their per capita is a tenth of yours. It will peak at one third of yours by this accounting. But you will begrudge them this which will do more to curtail their population growth than any other thing. You will insist on your “perfectly reasonable” 3 or 5 flights per year and not consider changing.

      Motivated by colonial guilt? The fuck?

      Poverty, wherever it happens.

    • Their per capita is a tenth of yours. It will peak at one third of yours by this accounting.

      You seem to believe that there is no way of putting “per capita” numbers in comparative relation with “aggregate” numbers or adjusting per capita numbers in one country with per capita numbers in another for differences in geography, history, culture or levels of development. I’ve never heard you trash Australians for higher per capita carbon emissions than “you, heh-heh, American boors.” I’ve never heard you trash Canadians for coming within a cat’s whisker of American per capita offenses. The world is not held captive in a static chart of numbers. India is going to explode on the world stage as a major polluter up there with the worst of them before 2050. If you don’t believe it…Wait.

    • Melvin. Every Australian posting here is pre-ashamed of their country’s record on this. I am appalled at all of the terrible decisions taken by craven UK governments. The recent early termination of feed in tarrifs totally wrong-footing investors was astonishingly stupid. especially as installed capacity has a multiplicative effect of all previously installed.

      My concern with you is you represent the biggest barrier to achieving the fastest change. Decent, deeply conservative Democrats, who prevaricate and point at others first and remain fatalistic about human behaviour.

      I have no intention of waiting to see what India does. We have systems in place for smart micro grids that optimise India’s attrocious power factor, lifting existing grid capacity cheaply whilst dropping terminal power demands.

      Until recently I worked for an Indian electrical services conglomerate and have consulted on some astonishing projects to make buildings entirely self sufficient from the use of very smart functional building panels. The Off-grid/ low-dependence business is set to take off very rapidly. I see every sign they will follow China’s increasingly accelerated change of policies, because they will drop the cost of achieving electrification without the need for imports.

    • Alan4: The total absence of electrical services to some rural areas, and 200 million Indians living off-grid, has NOTHING to do with “too many people” (although population level is a separate problem).
      It is all about a lack of education about available technologies, and previous unimaginative governments, being conned by carbonaceous Luddites, to persuade them to invest in the wrong, unnecessary technologies, which require capital intensive, heavy transport and grid infrastructures!
      However that is changing, and in addition to localised solar services in rural areas, other on-grid developments are being explored and developed.

      For sake of clarity, my position has nothing to do with trend fatalism. The progress optimists predict will come to pass to a greater or less degree -sooner or later. Technological inventions will come on line that increase fuel efficiency, reduce the fossil fuel share of the energy mix, along with carbon emissions. Such progress will have effectiveness adjusted negatively at least up to 2050 by collective imperatives for economic and population growth. It is naive and to discount the destructive effects of population growth globally over the last 90 years (one human lifetime) both in per capita and and aggregate degradation of the environment on which our species depends. It is unrealistic to say of a country, “it does not matter” if the population is 500 million people; “it does not matter” if the population grows to a billion; “it does not matter” if the population grows to 1.5 billion because population level remains a separate matter. At some point in the process of the future rapid population growth awaiting release on the world in the 21st century, no matter how stubbornly you try to to hold on to this mantra, you will be forced to open your eyes and say: “IT DOES MATTER.”

    • Melvin #55
      Nov 7, 2016 at 5:21 pm

      The total absence of electrical services to some rural areas, and 200 million Indians living off-grid, has NOTHING to do with “too many people” (although population level is a separate problem).
      It is all about a lack of education about available technologies, and previous unimaginative governments, being conned by carbonaceous Luddites, to persuade them to invest in the wrong, unnecessary technologies, which require capital intensive, heavy transport and grid infrastructures!
      However that is changing, and in addition to localised solar services in rural areas, other on-grid developments are being explored and developed.

      It is unrealistic to say of a country, “it does not matter” if the population is 500 million people; “it does not matter” if the population grows to a billion; “it does not matter” if the population grows to 1.5 billion because population level remains a separate matter.

      I did not say that the population growth “did not matter”!

      I said “it did not matter” to the issue of of avoiding carbon fuel pollution, by confining new generating capacity in electricity production, to using green sources such as solar, wind, and the energy from the sea, instead of coal, oil, gas, and the heavy infrastructure needed to transport these fuels. – and then phasing out the old polluting systems as the new technologies take over.

      India has a MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, recognising the problems, organising research and development, and beginning planning these changes.