[ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape

[samantha]

spike wrote:
>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the
>> landscape
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:33:51 -0400, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>> The world's largest dam, ...submerging land that was previously home
>>>> to more than 1 million people...
>>>>         
>>> If we take that into account, we get to add all the energy saved from
>>> those million people not living there anymore.
>>>       
>> Do we? Seems to me that unless we killed them or prevented their births,
>> those million displaced people consume roughly the same amount of energy
>> as otherwise, albeit from different locations.
>>
>> -gts
>>     
>
> Actually that was kind of a gag, g.  {8^D  A lame one, for sure.
>
> But it depends on how you count it.  Consider the illegal aliens pouring
> across the border into the US from Mexico every day.  On this side, they
> devour more energy resources than they would if they lived to the south, yet
> since greenhouse gas emissions are measured by oil imports and production
> within each nation's borders, this illegal immigration comes out on the
> books as a massive increase in the US consumption of oil and a decrease in
> Mexican energy consumption. 
Spike, I never know when you are serious.  The popularity of SUVs some 
years back was a massive increase.  Millions of gardeners, day laborers, 
low wage folks in general just cannot remotely match a large fraction 
ofthe energy consumption of  natives.  So I see no way this statement 
can be true.  Another gag?

>  Both changes are per capita, since the illegals
> in the US do not show up on the census-takers roles.  (They flee when any
> government type comes around.)
So do I. :-)

>   Similarly, Mexico might not take into
> account that a portion of their population has vacated to the north, which
> would cause their population estimates to be high, while their oil
> consumption would actually drop.
>
>   
Have you been to Mexico?  Much of the country has almost non-existent 
consumption (especially compared to US) due to poverty.

> When the Kyoto agreement debates were going on, I never did hear anyone
> mention that the US cannot sign such an agreement, since we have no
> practical way of stopping the flood of illegal immigration.  Or none that I
> know of.  Anyone have a suggestion?).
>
>   
Bizarre.  Must be a gag.

- samantha