This is actually my comment for this TechCrunch post (I hate posting big comments :)
Not surprised to see why no one wants to talk about population reduction as a greener option! Everyone wants to use the least damaging source of electricity (nothing is green. Every energy generation unit leads to some carbon emissions).
Ideal green solution: Reduce world population. This directly affects every source of consumption, which leads to reduced carbon emissions at multiple sources.
If an extra baggage policy works wonders for the airline industry, a similar policy should work wonders in eradicating poverty, reducing emissions etc. It should at least be implemented in the top 3 populous countries (China, India and USA). Have first baby free. for the second baby pay $1000. third baby $5000.
Why this solution will never be implemented:
Every single company/organization, for or non profit, needs to make money to survive and thrive. Its a direct loss to consumerism dependent companies if the number of consumers reduce every year. Imagine one day every human on the planet has a Facebook account. Now, its only in Facebook's interests to grow the number of accounts, which can happen only if the population grows. if the population reduces, even with 100% market share, number of facebookers reduce which means less revenue to facebook! (No one wants to suggest a way to lose profits)
Corporations ride on the stupidity of the consumers by saying a less damaging option as a green option. No one says consume less. Because that means lower revenues/profits!
To be green, recycle as much as possible, and before recycling, reuse as much as possible, and before reusing think a hundred times if you really need to buy it and use it (think of bottled water to understand this)
No comments:
Post a Comment