From: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greens LOVE Poverty
Keywords: energy environment oil press
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:49:43 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

In article <C1B08K.CAK@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.104647@roper.mc.ti.com> a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph) writes:
>>
>>I find a great deal of discomfort with some hypotheses required to support this
>>proposal:
>
>>     1)  96 mpg cars for the general case strike me as highly unrealistic
>
>>     2)  doubling of fuel efficiency of power plants seems unlikely
>
>>     3)  no mention is made for acomodating growth which barring intervention to
>>           ensure a no growth policy will occur at between 2% and 4% a year
B>>           minimum
>
>>     4)  no mention is made regarding handling the developing countries which can
>>           potentially cause an explosion in the need for energy
>
>Indeed, they are most unrealistic.

I have already posted evidence that suggests technologically speaking
they aren't unrealistic.

>>Why not come out and express the realities:
> 
>>     1)  Population growth must be controlled world wide
>
>Just how much government power over people's private lives do you think this
>would entail?

That depends on how serious we let the situation get. At the moment, a
lot can be acheived through family planning, more rights for women,
better education and freely available contraceptives in the relevant countries.

>>     2)  Standards of living in the devleoped world will drop by perhaps as much
>>            as 1/3  to 1/2
>
>Just how much misery do you think this sort of policy would generate?

The original comment was unsubstantiated, and indeed it is
technologically possible for us to cut our energy use in half without
altering living standards, and in many cases the changes could improve
the quality of life. See my essay on energy efficiency for some of the
evidence of this.

>>     3)  Business will have to undergo major restructuriong to approach zero
>>            emmisions and massive recycling
>
>Just how much arbitrary governemnt power will this require?  Who died and
>left you king anyway?  Keep your nose out of my business.  Perhaps we ought to
>be forced to cork our bodily orefices too?

If businesses are in the habit of wasting large amounts of resources,
then I think they should somehow deal with this, and in some cases
minimum standards should be set.
 
>>     4)  progress in the devloping world will be slowed by a rigorous need to
>>             support the environemntal controls which are at least being 
>>             attempted in the developed world today
>
>Since development in the 3rd world is so slow millions are already living in
>squalor and dying young, how many millions more would such policies kill,
>maim, and impoverish?

Development in the third world would be much quicker cleaner and cheaper
if we helped them adopt energy efficient technologies, and released them
from the intolerable burdens of debt.

>>     5)  Nonfossile energy sources need to be the predominant energy sources in
>>             the developing world
>
>Of course, this will be opposed by nuclear-shy environmentalists.  By the
>way, why not in the developed world too?  Who will build these plants?  Slave
>labor?

There are other options than the nuclear option, and they are cheaper
and more relevant to third world needs than nuclear is.

>>     6)  Nuclear energy sources will become ever increasingly important
>
>
>
>>My list may not be complete, may overspecify some items etc., but these are the
>>classes of policy changes required world wide for visions such as the proposed
>>fossile free energy world to be achieved.   
>
>Who put you in charge of determining what the vision for MY future ought to be?
>What if I don't want to live in the kind of poor, brutish, death-filled
>world you would like to see?
>
>--Brian 

The comments were attempting to cover the ground of the original summary
of the report. None of us has read the report yet, and it may well cover
the various points brought up in this discussion. I think you should
take a look at the evidence before judging it.

James

--
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *