Sunday, April 5, 2009

Carbon footprint-bigger the better

President Obama in his recent Town hall meet in Germany said India's carbon footprint is much smaller then America's. He also mentioned that the America is rich and India poor. Now the key question is that can he see the obvious that "bigger carbon footprint = rich" and "small carbon footprint = poor"? Does he is realise that what he is saying is that he wants to reduce the greatest, most prosperous country in the world to the level of a country barely coming out of abject poverty.

Freeman Dyson said at Tragedy Is Not Freeman Dyson’s Business
“The greatest evils are poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease and hunger, all the conditions that deprive people of opportunities and limit their freedoms.”

With the reverse of socialism in India we have seen unprecedented prosperity and rise of people above the poverty line. It is only due to the opening up of the markets and giving people freedom to choose their destiny that this has been possible. Now the dubious science of global warming threatens to undo all that. When people in first world sit and sermonise and talk about curbing progress in name of dubious computer generated models, it amazes me.

What Ayn Rand said so many years ago still holds true:
Ecology as a social principle . . . condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.
“The Lessons of Vietnam,” The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 25

There are so many ifs and buts in these theories but there are no doubts about the rise in living standards and the unleashing of the entrepreneurial energy in countries like India and China. Hopefully people can escape the devil with twin horns of socialism and environmentalism long enough to achieve decent standards of living.

Lets hope that the view “Humans, have a duty to restructure nature for their survival” prevails for the sake of billions who are finally getting to see glimpses of life as it should be - a celebration of human achievement and not a struggle for survival.


Jasmine said...

Great LTE.
“Humans, have a duty to restructure nature for their survival”. I completely agree with your hope that this view prevails. The way these valueless morons describe it, makes one nauseated, but then if it is their sense of "duty" that will get them out the way, who the heck cares what motivates them-just clear the way I say. After all it is definitely not our duty to save their souls!

Rajesh said...

Thank you Jasmine.

Mad Minerva said...

One of the great contradictions in the green movement is the idea that in order to protect the earth, it is ultimately acceptable to condemn millions of people to poverty. The poisonous idea exists, saying that nations in the First World have got their prosperity, but that is bad because it creates a huge "carbon footprint."

Meanwhile, developing nations have a smaller and therefore better "carbon footprint." Of course, they can only maintain that smaller footprint if they do not improve, acquire technology, strive for trade and prosperity -- and therefore they should not be permitted to advance, in the name of protecting the planet.

This is an unconscionably evil and misanthropic, indeed inhumane and cruel, view of policy.

Barun Mitra said...

The misanthropic aspect of the carbon footprint debate can be found in the fact that carbon intensity of the economy has been shrinking for a couple of hundred years. While energy consumption has increased, the energy efficiency has increased even more. And carbon emission per unit of GDP produced has been shrinking. Freer the economy, lower is its carbon intensity. Consequently, developed countries with greater energy efficiency and lower carbon intensity happen to be cleaner and greener as well. Poorer countries with lower energy efficiency and higher carbon intensity are also environmentally less clean. You will find more at and also at and at