"Because economic growth is still tied to energy usage, emissions will go up. So why does the government not announce that with every 1 percentage point growth of the economy, total energy consumption must decrease by 1 percentage point? By making this a national requirement, the true decoupling of economic growth and greenhouse emissions would take place..."So writes Flora Faun in a letter published in yesterday's Taipei Times. Just to be clear, she is talking about the government in Taiwan.
Carbon dioxide emissions from Taiwan are approximately 1% of global carbon dioxide emissions. In aggregation across the globe, carbon dioxide emissions apparently rose by 3% in 2011 alone. The logical implication of these two points is that a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in Taiwan during 2011 would not even have prevented the continued rise in carbon dioxide emissions across the globe.
So one possible answer to her question ("why does the government not announce that with every 1 percentage point growth of the economy, total energy consumption must decrease by 1 percentage point?") is that to do so would be, at best, futile.
However, that is only one possible answer - there are many others.
To begin with, "economic growth" means nothing else but an increase in the goods and services produced in an area designated as an "economy". In order to produce goods and services, people within that area require the consumption of energy - whether in the form of fuel for transportation, electricity for buildings and equipment or simple food for physical sustenance. An increase in the production of goods and services would therefore, assuming no technological improvement, require an increased consumption of energy.
To increase the production of goods and services whilst reducing the consumption of energy would therefore require a very substantial degree of technological improvement. Flora Faun appears to be arguing that the government merely "announce" that this must happen, or else - presumably - the total number of goods and services shall not be allowed to increase. With that in mind, two more possible answers to her question present themselves:
Technological improvement presupposes human creativity and as such, it cannot be "forced" but must rather be allowed to happen naturally in consequence of the development and testing of new ideas.
No government ought to be granted the power to cease all increases in the production of goods and services since such a power would be nothing other than a form of outright tyranny.
To summarise...
1) The government of Taiwan should not act on Flora Faun's insistence on carbon dioxide reductions because successful reduction of carbon dioxide emissions would be a futile gesture (even if one were to accept the CAGW premises).
2) The government of Taiwan should not act on Flora Faun's insistence on carbon dioxide reductions because new technology cannot be called forth at the mere pointing of a gun.
3) The government of Taiwan should not act on Flora Faun's insisence on carbon dioxide reductions because the people populating that government should not wish to entrench a condition of political tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.