06-03-2009, 07:38 AM
Quote:True environmental conservation is economically viable.
What I fear is that non-viable psuedo-environmental ideas get promoted as green solutions when they are really waste in disguise. Corn based ethanol or biodiesel are an examples of programs that here in the midwest USA has been over promoted to the detriment of our environment, and have taken important resources away from better solutions. Now, ethanol as a fuel additive is important for helping reduce automotive emissions, so some amount of ethanol production is a great idea. Light rail is another area where politically the rails never seem to be built to relieve congestion, nor do they have the capacity to replace highway lane miles. It would be much more effective to create commuter hubs and incentives for people to car pool. I'm afraid that without proper planning, even wind and solar generation may become net energy losers when the maintenance of all the additional power lines is factored into the equation.
My way of thinking is to promote changes to the societal norms, such as having everyone commute to work in the first place. How about we *really* get rid of the excessive amount of paper we consume, and establish the norm of every document being available electronically. I think economically, it would be a great idea to rethink the economic models where progress is measured upon ever increasing amounts of consumption. And, finally, nations need to agree upon strategies to encourage net zero population growth, because the problem is not just over consumption, but also world over population.
Indeed the biofuel is a good example of subsidizing farmers and (correct me if I am wrong, oil companies). In theory converting biomass to fuel is a good thing, but if you need to cut rainforrest (for palm oil in brazil) or use land that is normally used for food production it is of course not working.
My question is how government think of these things in the first place. I think they just want to show that they something for the environment but at the same time lets them transfer tax payers money to their voters.
If instead they would use the money to start up a few wind and solar power plants, then at least the money goes to the pay checks of the people working there, creating jobs and not destroying rainforrest or valuable crops.
In a while biofuel will be made from plant waste, but untill then biofuel should not be hyped.
Putting a halt on population growth is indeed important but the idea on how to do this is the most difficult thing. The most population growth occurs with dirt poor people. As long as these people remain this poor they will keep getting many children.....or you need to setup a china style one child policy but that is ethically very wrong of course.
Anyway, in terms of food and energy an average first world inhabitant uses the same amounts as many many africans....and for us population growth means economy growth. So the only viable option I see is a change in economic model. And being not an economist I can't tell you how exactly, but I think stepping of the need of continuous growth is one important point.
Zenda, I don't want to hack your thread; but it would be nice (to keep in the positive mood) for people to write their little plans and schemes that allow us to save or convert energy in envirnonmentally friendly and cheap ways.