Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, o.k., but in Britain we don't have any handy volcanoes to tap and we have about 10 times the population of any of the Scandinavian countries. My opinion of our governments since Wilson is pretty low. But with 60 odd million people it's a lot harder to be ecologically sound. I can think of a few ways of getting our population down in a fair and e ...[text shortened]... ard my ideas about reintroducing endemic warfare with traditional weapons as entirely ethical...
You're right. For a country 10 times bigger it is 10 times harder, true, but the resources to do it is also 10 times bigger. So that is not an valid argument.
Population of Denmark and Scotland is comparable. Denmark are worldwide best in wind power. I think it's quite windy in Scotland too. What is Scotland, a part of Britain, doing?
Some small countries don't want to do anything environmentally progressive, because "we are just a small country". Some big countries don't want to do anything environmentally progressing, because "we are a big country and it is too expensive". But their true attitude is "We don't want to!"
Small countries with limitied resources can do very much, why cannot bigger countries do the same? Or if you think the country is too big, then just divide it to a comparable size and start from there.
When really big and mighty nations don't do anything, like USA with one of the highest emisions of CO2 per capita, doesn't do anything, just pointing fingers at China, who only have a third of the rate of emissions, then the message is clear: "We don't want to do anything!"