Nick Palmer wrote:
I first heard it when I was talking to one of the politicians
(Economics Minister) in my own fair Jersey about 10 years ago when
he metaphorically patted me on the head and (paraphrasing) said
"don't you realise, little Green person, that we need more economic
growth to pay for the environmental clean up that you say is
needed"! This is a bit like a drug user saying they need even more
drugs to get their life back in order...
That's true. That's the point I was trying to make. We need less
economic activity, not more. A large fraction of "economic activity"
is annoying waste that nobody really wants: things like traffic jams,
and overly-bright street lights that interfere with sleep and disrupt
nocturnal species.
On the other hand, we do need a high level of industrial R&D
capability to fix these problems. For example, a third-world country
mired in hopeless poverty will not invent a fiber-optic
telecommunting infrastructure to reduce traffic jams. But once these
things are invented, poor but educated countries India or Pakistan
can build a telecom system and use it to offshore jobs from the U.S!
I hope they are also using it to reduce traffic jams within India, by
building small, satellite offices to reduce commuting distances. It
would be ironic of programmers in India drive for an hour through
choked traffic in order to do on-line work for companies that are
thousands of miles away.
- Jed
- Re: a meteorologist speaks on climate change Jed Rothwell
-
