No, I am not trying to get banned.
It's just what popped into my head when the ever-excellent Ecologist quoted the usually excellent Friends of the Earth on the matter of the Severn barrage (I'll pop in a link if I can find one):
"To seriously damage and important wildlife site to generate less than 1% of the UK's energy is not the way to lead the world in sustainable development'.
Hmnn. I can see a literal point being made here, but surely it is outweighed by a host of practical ones.
The big issue is nature vs. man (as if we are not part of the ecosystem as an organism, and were designed by...?). Yes, this will trash yet more green and pleasant to provide a less than essential commodity to feed such must-haves as the PC upon which I write.
But I am darned if I can see what the FoE expect. Even without Global Warming polar bears would eventually be consumed by Club Nome, as our population expands without check.
I'm afraid that, on a a pragmatic basis at least, if there is going to be a demand for energy that is currently fulled by carbon, I fear 99 more wildlife reserve may have to be sacrificed to meet it.
Or... we could just cut back. Odds?
No comments:
Post a Comment