fiandra,

It's possible to care about people as well as the planet. Indeed, I care about the planet *because* I care about people. And people are inextricably part of their environment:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/mu-erp112607.php

I'd like to know if, given a moment to think about it, the hard-working $6-a-day citizens of this developing country you LIVE in *really* "don't care about the environment". Have you ever actually asked?

Since you haven't identified the country I may fail to include it below, but rest assured that all people, however poorly remunerated and however poorly informed, have a direct interest in sustainable and clean development, globally and at home.

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6692
http://www.zeleza.com/blogging/global-affairs/environmental-movement-global-south-pivotal-agent-fight-against-global-warmi
http://www.eng.walhi.or.id/
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9509
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/19/international/asia/19china.html?ex=1279425600&en=2319c5dae21c9ab8&ei=5090
http://www.alternatives.ca/article2420.html

The efforts of well-meaning ADSL-equipped environmentalists in developed countries are less directly relevant than local work, but be aware also that educated and talented individuals of every country follow the money, contribute to the wealth and intellectual health of their host countries, and often return to their homelands with world-class expertise and/or fistfuls of dough.

It is partly, and most profitably, through sustainable development of the world's poorer countries that the problems of greenhouse pollution and peak oil will be addressed.

http://biopact.com/2006/07/look-at-africas-biofuels-potential.html
http://biopact.com/2007/11/wealthy-commonwealth-countries-urged-to.html
http://biopact.com/2007/08/report-biofuels-key-to-achieving.html

FWIW I too find Amery's comment quoted above distasteful. He has a point though: the same thing that makes the sale of human beings disgusting, also makes environmental devastation disgusting.

Economic life *depends* on unaccounted-for environmental services that are collectively worth tens or hundreds of times the value of anyone's money economy.

It's not "environment at all costs", it's environment or nothing.

I am so continually amazed at the failure of allegedly educated people to understand simple arithmetic, that I am compelled to repeat a post I made some weeks ago:

Any discussion on the third world and global warming needs to address these points:

1. The third world will never be developed. Peak Oil will see to that.

2. This is just as well, as if it were developed the resulting pollution would make the world inhabitable.

3. Even if we could discover a cheap source of energy to replace oil, the population explosion in the third world will prevent any improvement in living conditions. With the expected doubling of population there in the next 30 years, twice as many resources will have to be consumed just to maintain current abysmal standards.

4. The fundamental key to the rise of China was their one child policy.

5. The only issue that unites George W Bush, the Pope, the third world and the muslim world is that NOTHING must be done to limit population. As a result, the issue is rarely discussed, and when discussed is denounced as racism or genocide.

6. Any effort to ameliorate things without taking into account the previous points is doomed to failure, and amounts to urinating into the breeze.

7. This is not our fault.

8. There is nothing we can do about it.

8. "There is nothing we can do about it."

Yes there is Plerdus.

"Think globally, act locally."

There is now an urgency to lobby our governments (state and federal) to commence reducing CO2 NOW. Enough of the rhetoric. What is required in a very short period is:

1. A strategy to mitigate the massive emissions from the motor vehicle industry and a large increase in an efficient public transport system is essential. 2 billion, 2 million kgs of CO came from motor vehicles last year. This is the highest amount of CO of any source in the country.

2. A strategy to address the massive emissions from the iron and steel industry.

3. A strategy to address the eco-destructive farming of cloven hoofed livestock and feed crops which now occupy 58% of Australia's arid land mass.

4. A cautious approach towards a sustainable immigration programme.

5. A global, bi-partisan strategy (Kyoto?) and incentives for population control. Enough of the diplomacy!

6. A "command and control" system to regulate pollutant industries. All industrial stacks should implement scrubbers and pollutant control technologies already available. The voluntary, persuasive approach has not worked and our CO2 emissions are increasing every year.

We have all become intent on debating nuclear vs renewables when emissions from energy sources total around one third of our emissions.

Strategies 1 - 6 are more easily achievable and should be implemented ASAP. Why are we not addressing these?

There is absolutely no excuse in remaining indifferent to domestic pollution simply because the developing countries are pumping it out. After all, we, from the West, are the ones who have contaminated this planet.

And why do our regulators continue to give the nod for new coal fired plants when conversion to gas-fired, at least for an interim period, would reduce emissions by up to 50%.

And a bit of "trivia." I read tonight that Holden are about to import Cadillac cars to Australia. Are these the petrol guzzlers of old? If so, all I can say is shame, shame!

According to the World Bank the total energy consumption of each Australian is about 90,000 kwh per year. This is ALL energy consumption of which my domestic energy consumption I calculate at about 20%. Using Geothermal Hot Rock technology $30,000 builds enough capacity to supply 90,000 kwh per year at a cost of 1 cent per kwh. My personal super fund has invested in Geodynamics http://www.geodynamics.com.au and I have invested in other companies which are working to reduce the need to burn fossil fuels. These are likely to be profitable investments and in my mind I have reduced my and my immediate family's carbon footprint to zero for the foreseeable future as well help ensure our future income. If I can do it so can you.

If you are interested in the money these "Gods" want from us to perform their nature-changing miracles, have a look at my post in Ben's "A Spotlight on the Climate Crusaders".

The answer is about $71,400 per head annually, plus our own costs.

Leigh not quite sure if you are saying that to generate energy with renewable sources is going to cost us $70K per year each. If so that is wrong.

The numbers from geodynamics show that even without a carbon tax and with current low prices of coal the cost of electricity from hot rocks is competitive with coal. The main cost of renewables whether from hot rocks or from thermal solar is the cost of capital which is an opportunity cost or rent of money. The running costs of renewables is much lower than the running cost of fossil fuel systems and it can be argued that we already will create more long term wealth if we use renewables.

Australia should move immediately and quickly to replace all fossil fuel electricity generation with electricity from hot rocks or solar thermal.