4 ms·

That's easy to say from the First World, where they already traded our (global) environment for (local) gains. But what are the people in poor countries suppose

That's easy to say from the First World, where they already traded our (global) environment for (local) gains. But what are the people in poor countries supposed to do? Just stay poor forever?

mrpopo 7y ago
The problem of excessive energy consumption isn't caused by the people in poor countries though.
- saint_fiasco 7y ago
  It isn't now, but most countries that used to be poor and then ceased to be, did that by increasing energy consumption. China is a recent example, hopefully India will soon be another.
- vixen99 7y ago
  And who defines excessive? If you happen to be talking about CO2 emissions, the level in the UK (1% of total emissions) has been reduced to that last experienced in 1890. Aside from CO2 what's the problem with energy consumption in itself? There are plenty of people in the UK who have a financial problem in keeping warm in the winter. I see a figure of 4 million from 2016. That's not at all likely to get smaller as renewables push up from providing 22% (inc. non carbon) of the energy demand in the UK at present. https://gridwatch.co.uk/ https://gridwatch.co.uk/
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    > Aside from CO2 what's the problem with energy consumption in itself? I agree with this entirely. Some countries managed to reduce CO2 emissions from their electricity production. However when you look at primary energy consumption, including heating, industry, transportation, no country manages to reach a low-CO2 energy profile. > There are plenty of people in the UK who have a financial problem in keeping warm in the winter. There are plenty of people in the UK who live in old, precarious buildings with very poor insulation. Mandatory paid-for insulation in these buildings would reduce energy consumption, CO2 emissions and increase comfort of living. That's part of the measures pushed forward by Jancovici. > And who defines excessive? That is, indeed the key question of our times.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  Depends how you look at it. Perhaps - since it's often claimed it's our fault that they're poor - we're preventing it by keeping them poor. For sure, economies with 1b+ population could have problematic consumption if they developed quickly, like India and China.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  However, poor countries achieving consumption (and energy consumption) levels comparable to developed countries would definitely be excessive energy consumption, simply because there are so much more people in these poor countries.
jotm 7y ago
Here's the secret: few in the first world consider developing countries. No one cares about the brain drain (it's just people choosing where to live, right? lol) or their non-competitiveness due to rules imposed by first world countries. They got theirs, now we all need to work together snickers. To be fair, EU investment for example, is biased towards equality instead of excellence, i.e. invest in poorer states to bring them up to speed instead of dumping everything on the best performers. Probably because of the nature of the union, where everyone has a decent say. Even so, some developed countries benefit disproportionately. But the world as a whole is not the EU. What people in developing countries should do is say "yes sir, certainly", then proceed to work towards their own benefit. Like China did (the one thing they did right).
alexgmcm 7y ago
We traded our local environment too. I mean South America is 35% Old Growth Forest vs. less than 3% in Europe.[1] In Europe, pretty much only the Białowieża Forest remains. We destroyed everything else over the millennia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest#Locations_of_remaining_tracts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest#Locations_of...

That's easy to say from the First World, where they already traded our (global) environment for (local) gains. But what are the people in poor countries supposed to do? Just stay poor forever?

mrpopo 7y ago

The problem of excessive energy consumption isn't caused by the people in poor countries though.

saint_fiasco 7y ago
It isn't now, but most countries that used to be poor and then ceased to be, did that by increasing energy consumption. China is a recent example, hopefully India will soon be another.
vixen99 7y ago
And who defines excessive? If you happen to be talking about CO2 emissions, the level in the UK (1% of total emissions) has been reduced to that last experienced in 1890. Aside from CO2 what's the problem with energy consumption in itself? There are plenty of people in the UK who have a financial problem in keeping warm in the winter. I see a figure of 4 million from 2016. That's not at all likely to get smaller as renewables push up from providing 22% (inc. non carbon) of the energy demand in the UK at present. https://gridwatch.co.uk/ https://gridwatch.co.uk/
- mrpopo 7y ago
  > Aside from CO2 what's the problem with energy consumption in itself? I agree with this entirely. Some countries managed to reduce CO2 emissions from their electricity production. However when you look at primary energy consumption, including heating, industry, transportation, no country manages to reach a low-CO2 energy profile. > There are plenty of people in the UK who have a financial problem in keeping warm in the winter. There are plenty of people in the UK who live in old, precarious buildings with very poor insulation. Mandatory paid-for insulation in these buildings would reduce energy consumption, CO2 emissions and increase comfort of living. That's part of the measures pushed forward by Jancovici. > And who defines excessive? That is, indeed the key question of our times.
lazyjones 7y ago
Depends how you look at it. Perhaps - since it's often claimed it's our fault that they're poor - we're preventing it by keeping them poor. For sure, economies with 1b+ population could have problematic consumption if they developed quickly, like India and China.
PeterisP 7y ago
However, poor countries achieving consumption (and energy consumption) levels comparable to developed countries would definitely be excessive energy consumption, simply because there are so much more people in these poor countries.

jotm 7y ago

Here's the secret: few in the first world consider developing countries. No one cares about the brain drain (it's just people choosing where to live, right? lol) or their non-competitiveness due to rules imposed by first world countries. They got theirs, now we all need to work together snickers. To be fair, EU investment for example, is biased towards equality instead of excellence, i.e. invest in poorer states to bring them up to speed instead of dumping everything on the best performers. Probably because of the nature of the union, where everyone has a decent say. Even so, some developed countries benefit disproportionately. But the world as a whole is not the EU. What people in developing countries should do is say "yes sir, certainly", then proceed to work towards their own benefit. Like China did (the one thing they did right).

alexgmcm 7y ago

We traded our local environment too. I mean South America is 35% Old Growth Forest vs. less than 3% in Europe.[1] In Europe, pretty much only the Białowieża Forest remains. We destroyed everything else over the millennia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest#Locations_of_remaining_tracts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest#Locations_of...