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

spike spike66 at comcast.net
Sat Jul 28 18:29:01 UTC 2007

> 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.  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.)  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.

Keep this in mind when you see per capita energy consumption: those
calculations do not account for illegals in the country.  No one knows how
many there are, but estimates vary from 8 million to over 20 million in the
US.  The numbers are growing daily.

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?).

If we had a clause in the Kyoto agreement that allows us to calculate our
per capita energy use including an estimate of the numbers of undocumented
residents, then are further given the freedom to estimate those numbers by
any means we wish, then and only then could we have a chance of meeting the
per capita energy use goals.  Of course every country would meet all energy
goals without changing a thing other than their estimates of the numbers of
illegal immigrants.  We wouldn't know how many illegals we have until we
know how much oil we used.

In all the debate a few years ago, I did notice that the nations most eager
to sign on the Kyoto bandwagon were those that already have low birth rates
and strict immigration law.  I don't see how the Kyoto agreement takes into
account those nations (such as the US) which anticipate massive population
growth thru illegal immigration and high birth rates among illegals.



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list