Well i am young (very young by some peoples standards ) And so probably have a very jaded and biased view on the world . . .
For 'jaded' and cynical, it's hard to beat an ex-Whitehall civil servant...
I accepted that industry were the main reason for resource wastage in the world i was just trying to pose the question, does it really hurt us to use a little less? especially if using a little less doesn't even have to mean a great change in our normal routines?
Oddly, I think it does. You can see why below...
You say that my example reservoir just needed to be larger DG. however, an infinitely large reservoir is not a feasible project.... so I don't see how you can turn a poorly placed dam into a viable project just by increasing the size of the dam...If that makes any sense.
You are quite correct - technology is not always a complete answer, and it always has to be the right technology. A poorly-placed dam will always underperform compared to a properly-placed one, and there are certainly large areas of the world where a dam/reservoir is not practical at all. My concern was rather with an implication I read into your words that, because dams have their own limitations and problems, technology should be rejected in favour of behaviour modification...
The infrastructure needs to be constructed by todays government for the future population. For some reason (unknown to me) governments seem unwilling to do anything that will truly benefit future generations if their are no rewards for those generations that are here now.
Aha! Here we come to the root of the problem, and the reason I pop up whenever I hear people extolling the benefits of saving and recycling. Are you sitting comfortably? Then |I'll begin.....
A long time ago, governments and civil servants saw themselves as mainly there to benefit the people. They ran foreign policy, and defence, and developed big country-wide infrastructure projects like railways, sewers, telecommunications, broadcasting and the National Grid.
They soon ended up with a lot of expensive equipment and services under their control, and, being civil servants, ran it quite inefficiently, without much commercial accumen.
Thatcherism changed all that. All this expensive infrastructure was sold to industry, who operated it much more efficiently than the civil servants. Look at the mobile phone explosion. Thatcherite ideas made a lot of profit for both government and industry, and were quickly copied all round the world. Unfortunately, civil servants work for the people, but industry works for profit....
As I indicated earlier, industry are always looking to maintain their profits, and will not invest in lifetime payback projects. They have politically-inspired financial disasters like the Channel Tunnel to show them what happens if they ignore profit predictions. So they will not invest heavily in new infrastructure unless, like phones, you can show a profit in 5 years or less. They will get as much as they can out of the existing infrastructure, and governments, having launched the idea, supported them in this, though they are now starting to have second thoughts...
Speaking generally, we have now used up all the slack that was built into the old infrastructure. Technology has helped this - we now run with many more trains on a track than 50 years ago, and our Grid is much nearer to 100% load - all enabled by computer technology. We badly need new and expanded services - indeed, in the UK I think it is already too late for electricity generation, and I anticipate rolling brown-outs in the next 10 years before we can get more power stations on line...
The industry is addressing this problem by trying to cut demand. It has stoked up an almost religous fervour for 'green environmentalism'. This is aimed squarely at the government regulators, who may be minded to 'force' companies to invest. The total savings you can get if the public turn off standby on TVs is miniscule, but if you can make it impossible for a government to consider a series of new power stations, you have saved your company and shareholders many billions.
This is managed by running advertising campaigns, working with environmental activists, with the aim of turning people off the whole idea of new technology. You may think it's odd - I couldn't possibly comment - but it makes perfect financial sense. Get people to reject the whole idea of new investment, as a religious duty, and you won't be forced to pay for any of it. That is why I try to encourage people to think about what lies behind the glib phrases and exhortations to 'Save a little bit'...
Eventually, of course, government will have to buy back the infrastructure from industry if they want it run for the benefit of the people. But by then, the politicians who made their reputations in this way will be long dead....