70 comments on Kyoto, Canadians, Energy and the Environment
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
70 comments on Kyoto, Canadians, Energy and the Environment
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
If this kind of post would be representative of the average level of either posts or even comments at TOD, that would solve many problems, because it would get real quiet around here..
i see not one original idea, not even one thing that is not common knowledge, and to top it off, the author tries to fool me into thinking that different lightbulbs and electric bicycles are the brickroad that would allow me to feel good about myself? Where are we here?
Back to the drawing board. There's not even any air in this balloon.
We don't need any original ideas. Everyone knows the answer. This world needs a maximum population of 1-2 billion people. If we had that population, then every idea thrown out would be just fine, and creating a sustainable life would be simple.
The fact of the matter is that there is no way to drop the population before the house of cards collapses. We might as well be talking about sports or britney spears on this site for all the good that this will do us.
I've been concerned about energy efficiency, population and sustainability since the late 1960's when I was a process development manager in the chemical industry. I agree that population is the elephant in the room. However, I would argue that it is part of the business-as-usual (BAU) paradigm that includes issues of governance and economics.
During this 30+ years I have walked the walk of my beliefs and concerns. I'm a non-parent, have a highly energy efficient house, lots of AE stuff, grow quite a bit of our food, etc. While CFLs might not seem like much, they might plant the seed that people need to become concerned about these issues. And, isn't this what we are hoping for?
Since I'm in the dieoff crowd, I'm not too worried about population per se. The only thing that saddens me is that it could have been avoided.
Todd
I feel you missed the point of my article. We don't need original ideas; we're not using the 'common knowledge' we already have and could bring to bear on increasing efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, etc. I picked a few that are well known to make the point. There are many more - they take up most of the second half of my book, The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy. That's also not the issue. If we want change, it's a DIY project, not something to delegate to elected officials.