[lit-ideas] Re: global luke-warming -- addendum

  • From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:16:27 -0700 (PDT)

--- Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But, it's the developing nations that are GOING to
> be the problem. The UK, 
> Germany, Canada, even RUssia have negative growth in
> CO2 emissions. US is 
> at about 10% and Australia at 15%. It's the growing,
> developing problems 
> with HUGE populations that are becoming a problem.
> China, India, Brazil, 
> South Korea, and weirdly enough Saudi Arabia, have
> shown a huge recent 
> increase in CO2 emissions. How does the developed
> world, which is clearly 
> taking steps to reduce the emissions, or at least
> claw them back a little, 
> possibly twist the other half's arm sufficiently to
> make THEM take up the 
> cause? The thing is, we really can't.
>
Well yes and now. Yes, energy demand is rising fast,
but then again:

First, the way developing countries can close the gap
is by catchup effects, that is they take up the latest
technology without incuring the development costs we
had. For example, as part of my work I deal with IT
companies in Baltics. The IT  infrastructure is much
better than anything in Western Europe, for example
Tallinn had open WLANs and parking paid by mobile
phone well before Helsinki, and precisely because they
could start from the scratch. Why would the Chinese
use inefficent older power generation technology?

Second, even if global problems are poorly understood,
local pollution is a clear and visible issue. Add to
that oil supply problems, and I don't see why they
would want to build the infrastructure the way we did.

Third, speaking of Bangladesh and India on the whole,
from energy generation perpective Himalayas is one
huge un-developed hydro-energy plant. Having a decent,
stable govenment in Nepal would help. Also, given
their climate solar power is viable, esspecially
considering it would lighter and cheaper electric
grid.

> Norway and 
> Sweden are adjacent to each other, and both have
> very cold climates, but 
> Sweden is low on the per capita CO2 and Norway near
> the top because 
> Sweden's Biomass technology is very efficient and
> non-polluting (in terms 
> of CO2) compared to Norway's coal supply.
> 
Norvegians use coal? They have enough hydro-power to
export it to their neighbours (Nordic countries have a
common electricity market, for all I know I am typing
this with a laptop powered by Norvegian hydroplant.)
And they have oil and gas fields, most of which is
exported too.



Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: