"Why should I change? Why don't you change is just as fair a demand." - because it is really not hard to tread more lightly on the earth with your consumption of finite resources."
..................................
Why should I "tread more lightly at all"? Are you suggesting that we should be ashamed of our existence? That is the logical conclusion of that line of thought, that we are a burden in some undefined way. Thomas Malthus had a similar line of reasoning over two hundred years ago and could be regarded the father of the overpopulation theory. That it has been shown to be a complete crock has had no effect on the idea's adherents at least judging by their number today. Even the thoroughly discredited Paul Erhlich, author of the very influential book "The Population Bomb" has managed to have a comfortable career as a professor despite being shown to be wrong in many ways, even losing $10k on a bet with economist Julian Simon over commodity prices over a decade, given that with increasing scarcity commodities should be increasing in price rather than decreasing over time as they continue to do. Perhaps this "finite resources" idea is just a quasi-religious meme that postulates that there will be more to go around if we each use less. I'd like to see some evidence to support that idea.
The real issue for me is the artificial inflation of using "finite" resources as opposed to the real price.
............................... "That's hilarious it's called individuals using initiative and putting their capital forward to lighten the load on finite resources and inturn return more power lowering the cost of their own consumption even returning equity in to their bank each quarter." ................................
Thieves use their own initiative too, so that is not the question, to use initiative or not but rather the end to which the initiative is applied.
Lighten the load on finite resources? Hmmm, so solar panels aren't made from finite resources?
The only reason they are returning any equity to their bank accounts each quarter is because of the impost they are placing on their non solar racketeering neighbours.
................................. "they are thieves stealing and putting it on their neighbours" LOL give me a break that sounds like a little sooky cry from someone that hasn't taken any initiative to contribute - the opportunity is there for everyone, if you choose not to take it and not to put any of your capital thee - that's your own thing don't cry foul. ..................................
"Hasn't taken the initiative to contribute", wow, as I noted in my previous post they not only leech off the rest of us but get to feel smug about it too. Contribute? In what way exactly? Supplying vastly overpriced electricity without any contractural supply guarantees?
As was sorted out here years ago when BB proudly told us he was going to be leeching off his neighbours by way of a solar system and used words like initiative, contribute, blah blah, and said that it was open to everyone to do the same.....well, no it isn't. There was a government cap on the numbers receiving the high feed in tariff. To take it to the logical conclusion, if absolutely everyone had a solar system and was "contributing" to the grid and was scoring a 40c kWh F.I.T then that is what all of us would pay, plus the cost of generators that need to be running anyhow as backup so there goes the whole economic basis for the racket. No, it only works if a few leech off the rest and the majority put up with it.
This whole idea of "sustainability" "finite resources"(as normally used by greens) etc would be a good topic here sometime, to see if these overused buzzwords actually had any meaning behind them or were just quasi-religious feel good wank. I suspect the latter but would be happy to be proved wrong.
