I have a lot of concerns with this type of Lefty Lunacy, Dave, and I mean this in a nice and sincere way.
We are a small country population wise with a high standard of living so will have larger emissions, by definition, of whatever it is ie good, bad or ugly (and I am NOT saying CO2 emissions are bad or ugly but that they are necessary and we will have been found to have done the world a favour emitting the life-sustaining CO2, some day).
Let me explain. Let us say we have a country with a small community of 10 families with ave of 4 persons per family or 40 people. They have the best of everything so have power generation, industry, shops and cafes, etc etc etc. The infrastructure is very large and the emissions per head will be very high.
Let us say that this country decides that they should have more people to enjoy their lifetsyle of abundance and help the country grow so they allow another 15 families with four people per family to migrate, making it a country of 100 people.
All of the 100 people will still enjoy a very high standard of living but the infrastructure developed for the 40 will not have to be upgraded much to cater for the additional numbers so the emissions per head will decrease.
And so it is with our great and still wonderful Land of Oz!
- Forums
- Political Debate
- News: Pacific Island leaders start talks on climate targets
I have a lot of concerns with this type of Lefty Lunacy, Dave,...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 44 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)