[Greenbuilding] Tata, funny name, un funny topic.

[Speireag Alden]

Kirsten Flynn wrote:

> I think the main point, and why eco freaks like me have our knickers
> in a twist over this car, has little to do with whether it is more or
> less efficient than a Prius.  The thing that frightens me is that if
> even a fraction of Indians and Chinese can afford this car, even if it
> is micro emissions, we are in deep (methane producing) poop.

     True.  Of course, we're already in deep.  This will just put us  
in deeper.

> This cheap car removes one barrier to these increasingly urbanized,
> and enormous populations starting to approach western levels of carbon
> emissions.  Yikes.

     Yup.

> Lets get a grip on population.

     This is hard to do, when the smallest mention of the topic  
offends anyone who has had more than X children, where X is the  
particular cut-off point espoused by the poster.  Inevitably, the  
people who have had more than X children will bring up a variety of  
arguments in response to the criticism of their procreation, whether  
direct or implied.

     It's interesting to see that your post has apparently touched a  
similar nerve, where even considering the FACT that massive  
industrialization of those portions of the world which aren't yet  
industrialized will have huge consequences for all of us,  
industrialized or not.

>> Now this is of course a touchy subject, as we have seen at Kyoto, in
>> Bali, and even in the rhetoric of GWB.  Can we make the developing
>> nations cap when we are the "carbon sinners"?

     No, we can't.  That's why no one listens to us, because we're  
arguing from a hypocritical position.  It's not enough for some of us  
to take whatever measures we think we can currently afford.  The fact  
remains that for every Westerner who does anything remotely  
significant to reduce her own consumption, there are 99 who are  
merrily using more than their share.

     We can't ignore the fact that they're there, because we are  
them, and third-worlders will point at them, with justification.

     And thus, we have no traction to argue, despite the fact that  
thoughtful environmental Westerners are in a pretty good position to  
point out some of the perils of industrialization as we have done it.

>> Is it fair to try and
>> regulate a country that is just trying to achieve the health and
>> quality of life for it's citizens that we already have?

     No.  But fair only matters sometimes.  It matters in public  
policy and politics, because it prompts behavioral responses which  
help or hinder progress toward a goal.

     But when a boat is sinking, it matters not much how fast one  
group is knocking fresh holes in the hull, and it matters not a whit  
whether it's fair that they haven't gotten their share of sea water yet.

-Speireag.