What Fred is actually saying is that as far as the environment in concerned, it is better that humanity remains of limited economic means - after all, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to over consume and thus emit less carbon. Unfortunately given Fred's leftist leanings, he also seems to be saying that remaining poor is also the solution to this problem.
Given that today's economy is based on cheap carbon based energy, one can in general make the link between carbon emission and wealth/consumption. The solution to this is in the switch to non carbon based energy sources that continues to experience tremendous drops in costs due to technological progress. The second leg to this solution is to reduce the energy intensity per unit of production by increasing efficiency. As much as 40% of one's carbon foot print comes from one's home. In many places in the US, solar is already cost competitive with the grid, if the costs are amortized over 30 years. Unfortunately, this also means that users have to pay steep upfront costs to get such a system going. Many cities/utilities are now allowing these costs to be amortized via property taxes. Effectively, the home owners get a loan from the utility or city to pay for the set-up. They then payback the loan through higher property taxes, while saving the equivalent amount through lower utility bills. It is a zero sum game for the consumer, but a plus for the environment. The other advantage with this set-up is that it is portable. If the owner sells the home, the setup (costs and savings) are automatically and invisibly transferred to the new owner. The transfer rights/costs under this system are far less complicated than if the first owner paid for the system outright. With subsidies etc, the costs can be even lower. I recently converted our home to solar power. My long term solar costs come to around 3.9c/kwhr. This compares with the commercial rate from the utility at 11c/kwhr. Even better, these costs remain fixed over the life (30yrs) of the panels, while one can safely assume utility costs will increase over this equivalent period. Even with the recession in the US, demand for clean energy (primarily wind and solar) continues to increase at a rapid rate due to steady decreases in costs. This year for example, growth rates in the US are estimated to be around 40%. Over the past decade, it has been around 20% per year, compounded. Right now, thanks to very generous subsidies, the biggest market in the world by far is Germany (around 50% of the world's solar demand). However, based on current trends, the US will inevitably become the largest consumer of solar power within the next decade. Marlon ----- Original Message ---- From: Gabriel de Figueiredo <gdefigueir...@yahoo.com.au> To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet@lists.goanet.org> Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 5:57:11 AM Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goa to host India�s first carbon neutral wedding FN, Who said anything about planting trees in a rural setting? Plant them where you are - make sure you have enough space for trees when you are building a house. The context in which I said whatever I said was in the context of a couple getting married. Right. This means a house, in the long run, and children (if the couple are so endowed - there are lots of people not so lucky to have children, but that is another story). This is nothing to do with the rich and greedy and the foreign countries (do I sense envy here?), but is everything about being practical. Controlling population is not an old bogey. It is stark reality, and if you haven't already felt its effects in that super-populated area, it is high time you did. The more "feet" you have the more you consume.. Add to that greater affluence and access to modern trinkets, and you have massive pollution both in creation and in destruction of material goods, aside from being able to produce sufficient food and grain. Gabriel. ----- Original Message ---- > From: Frederick Noronha <fredericknoro...@gmail.com> > To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet@lists.goanet.org> > Sent: Sat, 12 December, 2009 11:52:05 AM > Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goa to host India�s first carbon neutral wedding > > Theoretically, the trees would be planted in some rural setting in the > 'developing' world, bringing money to the poor. But won't this result > in a double-whammy really? The super-rich, rich and middle-classes, > freed of the guilt of the responsibility, could easily go on to > consume more AND the poor, getting the advantage of heightened > purchasing power, would also do likewise? > ... > On one point though, a bit to differ: don't blame overpopulation > alone. This has been made into a bogey for many decades now. The > bigger threat, even here in the context of the Indian (and Goan) > affluent classes, is over-consumption! FN >
