It's been an 'interesting' week: When frugal meets responsible

It's been an 'interesting' week

When frugal meets responsible

A few days ago a thoughtful friend told me about a news story that India (the Indian Government) has decided to decrease its import of coal in 2-3 years, but nonetheless its demand is still growing. It will looks to develop its domestic supplies rather than cutting consumption through developing renewable or nuclear generation sectors. In the mean time India will import as much coal as it can, as it feels that it should raise its poor (and let's face it there are a lot of them) out of poverty, even it this risks the future of the generations to follow -- a depressing, but interesting and perhaps justifiable and ethical dilemma and an understandable policy. Relative ethics is a fascinating topic in itself and it difficult to apply in an systematic holistic manner.

The coal in question is dirty and harms the world in addition to the seemingly inexorable carbon emissions, which are now synonymous with all our brief existence on Earth, which is problem enough when Indian-scale energy growth is considered. I don't wish to criticise; I just observe and think about what it means to me; What else could I do? Can I offer a better solution? Probably not.

Moreover, in the same week, I read on the BBC News web site that 30% of the world's population is obese (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30122015). And Oxfam writes that 1 in 9 of the world's population is starving.

This raises some, fundamentally interesting Geo-political, strategic questions that the United Nations will struggle to frame, let alone address. 

These questions are about our survival, when taken to their ultimate conclusion(s). And that may not be too many decades away. But what does it mean to the individual, here and now? Will enough of those three and a half billion people (the consumers... and we are in that camp, even if we are not obsese) do enough to make a difference? Should I stop eating meat? Should I stop taking flights for recreational or even business reasons? And if I do, will enough of those three and a half billion (3 500 000 000) people follow suit to make a meaningful difference? And if only a small 'liberal' fraction of those do, will it have a real, tangible, measurable effect? Well, who knows?

I feel that I 'know' the answer and it is not good. But we don't really know. I wonder if science and scientists can provide the answers to the satisfaction of society and governments. 


For a long time now -- a decade or more -- there has been broad scientific consensus about the Climate Change -- the impact of the human race ('man') on our fragile world -- Earth. Governments don't really dispute this conclusion. And governments, for the most part, reflect the views of their people. But how do political leaders in a democracies even begin to address the strategic, long-term issue of climate change, whilst trying to address the here-and-now issues of realpolitik? Poverty, economics, social unrest, etc.

The short answer is they and we don't know how to or really want to address Climate Change. The case is not yet sufficiently compelling or visceral to prompt coherent action. Event the the carbon emissions targets of 1997 were quickly forgotten when the global  recession hit us

So, what can we conclude for the Froo Gal crew? Well, enlightened self interest is perhaps the best way forward. Cut down on red meat to improve your health and save money. It is a useful side effect that it will also reduce carbon emissions. Similar arguments apply for turning down your heating, driving few miles, cutting out foreign flights and lowering our consumption generally. And if we all do a little of this the overall effect might be meaningful to the generations that follow.


Understand the difference between cost, price and value!