BBC’s science and technology site has a new article about how much energy could be saved if we cut down on the energy used by lighting. (That’s lighting, by the way, not lightning.) http:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/1\/hi\/sci\/tech\/5128478.stm<\/a><\/p>\n

This is clearly true and obviously a laudable aim. There was one argument that completely stumped me though.<\/p>\n

“The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation, the IEA says.”<\/font><\/p>\n

So cars and buses produce almost as much CO2 as lighting the entire planet and planes produce a third as much CO2? I think we can probably take for granted that a lot fewer than 33% of the world’s population make many plane journeys. Even those who do are unlikely to be racking up many frequent flyer miles. I also think it would be fair to say that a lot less than 70% of the global population have much access to a vehicle. <\/font><\/p>\n

Surely this means that carbon emissions could be quickly reduced by targeting the small section of the global population whose use of planes (and passenger transport) must create more carbon per head per year than would be generated by lighting the average third world city?<\/font><\/p>\n

More use of energy-saving lightbulbs would obviously be a good idea, but their cost would have to come down a lot before most people could see them as a viable alternative to the uber-cheap wasteful lightbulbs that we usually use. Limiting plane journeys would be easier, giving a quick savinng for little action.<\/p>\n

Unless, of course, poor people don’t have the same global shout as the very wealthy (or even the moderately wealthy who can afford a week in Spain twice a year.) Which couldn’t be true.<\/p>\n