NOTE: I am closely…

NOTE: I am closely associated with the environmental protection group Algonquin Eco Watch. However, the following comments are my own and do not necessarily represent that organization.

 

Economists tell us that we must have a growing economy, but the only way to accomplish that appears to be a constantly growing human population world-wide, which can then become a constantly growing number of "purchasing units". But where is the end point?

 

Pogo said "We have met the enemy and he is us".

 

This is true - as we constantly devour more and more of our natural resources and more and more species disappear, while more and more humans starve.

 

Is there an end point?

 

Not unless we impose one.

 

How do we limit our numbers, and achieve a stable or growing economy?

 

China tried it, but didn't succeed. But if we cannot accomplish that goal, life on earth will soon become a truly living hell.

 

Ironically, as medical science develops ways to keep us alive longer, this simply exacerbates an already declining quality of life on earth.

 

But still economists and politicians continue to dance around the "Elephant in the Room". A never ending growth among the human population will necessarily demand a corresponding never ending supply of energy to supply the growing economy. A vicious circle!

 

And where will the energy come from, and how "clean" will it be?

 

NUCLEAR: The cleanest and (possibly) the cheapest, but undoubtedly the most dangerous by-products and the most difficult waste to safely store, e.g. Bruce Nuclear.

 

Also, nuclear power is not "storable".

 

WATER: The only truly "storable" energy, but requires the building of costly dams to create storage reservoirs. Flooding causes the production of dangerous mercury by-products and seasonal intentional water fluctuation wreaks havoc with reptile, amphibian and fish populations*, not to mention the flooding of huge amounts of arable and bush land, much of which was formerly occupied by humans.

 

WIND: Like nuclear power, wind storage is not "storable", but requires huge monetary expenditures, is not reliable, but depends upon variable winds, and incurs significant maintenance of moving parts.

 

SOLAR: While solar power is "passive", having no moving parts, and is storable in batteries, it depends on sunlight for power production and covers large areas of possibly arable land.

 

So, it is likely that water-generated energy will be (and already has become in Ontario) the major player in our quest for cheaper electrical energy. This in spite of the irreparable damage that will result to Ontario's flowing waters! The loss to future Ontarians will seem negligible, because they never will have experienced the beauty and bountiful production of living plants and creatures that once we took for granted - What a needless shame! What a waste!

 

* Literature available upon request.

 

[Original Comment ID: 207110]