China and India have much larger populations than the UK, so of course their consumption will be larger than ours. If you look at per capita emissions, I think you'll find that they are much more frugal than us.
Oh Simon you do disappoint me. The 'per capita' argument is so ridiculous and discredited, I am amazed you have the cheek to use it. I know you to have a far more able intellect that that.
Eh?
The 'per capita' argument is of no value as it is allegedly the actual amount of Co2 being pumped into the atmosphere which counts, the number of people making up the population of a country is immaterial to the alleged global effect of the emissions.
True, the atmosphere doesn't care from which geopolitical entity the greenhouse gases came, it just does what the laws of physics tell it to do.
I think either you're missing my point, or I'm missing your point, or quite possibly both.
My point is that most of us individual people in our comfortable homes in Swindon consume a lot more, and emit a lot more in the way of greenhouse gases than the vast majority of individual people in a lot of other places, including the rapidly-growing China and India. Those individuals are aspiring to be like us, and I can't really blame them for that.
The trouble is, what they aspire to is the result of an unsustainable industrial revolution. And that's a lot of people aspiring.
Let's give them something better to aspire to. Have you read the Zero Carbon Britain report Des? We may be on opposing sides of this particular debate but I'd still like to read what you think of it.
Its a simple fact that renewable energy is incompatible with the energy demands of modern society as we know it in the west - nor the desires and aspirations of those in the developing world. End of.
The first part I agree with. The second part I think puts us at odds. I get the impression that you think the supply should change to meet the demand. I think the demand needs to change.
Quasi-mystic blethering about some fantastic cost-effective solution just around the corner is just that.
I've been mostly ignoring Rob's posts about zero point energy being suppressed by evil governments in hock with whichever conspiracy it is this week (sorry Rob if that's a misrepresentation, I haven't had time to watch your videos).
But seriously, there are energy solutions which are both sustainable (i.e. they don't depend on a finite resource) and technically feasible, but they need money to make them happen. I don't want to see all that money sucked into a programme of building nuclear reactors and decomissioning them 20 years later, followed by "Oh shit, we've run out of uranium and we're broke". I want that money put into energy generation solutions which don't depend on things which will run out.
However something which takes geological lengths of time to dispose of * is no solution to running out of stuff which takes geological lengths of time to create.
We actually have little choice but to find ways to make renewables work, and find ways to store and deliver power efficiently.
Well said James O0 My vote for post of the month.
