The Economist wrote a very comprehensive article on energy and environmental politics in Norway. Though they pretty much got all the major points right, I disagree with both their conclusions and Norwegian politics on these topics. What do you know! :-)
How Norwegians choose to use our energy is hardly relevant compared to the global energy consume. We are after all only 5 million people up here. So it is a bit like the mouse peeing in the ocean.
Do anybody care if a small country like Norway act like a good example? I seriously doubt it. We might like to think we do, but based on my international experience it doesn't account for much in big politics. It's not like we are even invited by the G8 (fill in number, it used to be 7) countries to discuss the matters. Not for real.
What Norway could do with all our money is to develop alternative energy technology. I have no idea who came up with this buying CO2 quotas. It is plain stupid and does not reduce the global production of gases. I can't get how the rest of the world don't get this. They are fooling themselves to think this is green politics. It is nothing but helping poorer countries reach the same level of pollution as the rich world, ideally, as opposed to the alternative that they will produce even more than we are at this point of time. Need I remind y'all that India and China alone are populated by 2.4 billion people? We can't quota buy us out of that energy problem. Why should we ask them to live without the energy we have? We can't and they shouldn't and will not accept that. That is all.
We will be out of oil one day. By then we might have drowned in CO2 or whatever - and we have no alternatives. Not for cars at least. Non-mobile equipment will be fuel by coal or nukes, but the cars will at best start to roll real slow compared to today. And that we can't have. :-)
The solution is using technology to reduce the emissions today and invent alternatives for the future.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment