Thank you, Ranil.

I am only intrigued at the timing – it was going to start(I only saw the notice for the conference, but never saw anything about what actually happened)on 13 December whereas the Durban finished on 11 December.

Regarding allergy to cooperation and collaboration, it’s so sad.

Dear Kusum,

Unfortunately I do not have that information, even though I work at the international level, I am not usually invited to such events in Sri Lanka. It seems that, the local bureaucratic/camp follower system is a bit allergic to my presence.

Please let me know where I can look up to see what happened in the climate Change conference in Colombo in mid-December. Thanks.

Oh, and you may argue that a 100 people traveling in a smoke-belching bus is better than a 100 cars, but the fact is in the Third World, entire families travel on motorcycles and small cars; so its no more than 25 vehicles, probably less that are being replaced.

Kadphieses, you don’t need to tell me about the virtues of government legislation, or its effectiveness. My point to you was on the ineffectiveness of global measures. The latter cannot work until the governments are willing and able to pass and implement their own legislation. So it has to be a bottom-up system rather than one imposed from above. The latter rarely work, as I pointed out with the example of Kyoto.

As with your beef example, government legislation can be passed only if the people are accepting of it (at least in a democracy). You can’t ban beef if people want beef. You can ban sales of beef on Poya day, if people grudgingly admit that there’s something sinful about eating animals and are willing to give it up for a day. Same with cars. London can impose higher taxes on cars entering the city only if the majority of people are OK with it. Drastic measures cannot be imposed on the unwilling.

Perhaps one day everyone will be willing to give up the entertainment factor of motoring, but that day’s a long way off. The point is, just downsizing engines won’t work. There has to be serious research and development of lighter materials that don’t require such large engines. How many governments are doing that?

As to market factors, how many big and medium engine and car manufacturers do you know that produce just for their domestic markets? Export is a prime market since most countries don’t produce their own engines and cars, especially in the Third World. So say Ford (and all other American engine manufacturers) decide to stop producing everything above a 1.5-litre straight-4 turbo, and also ban all imports above that capacity. It’ll basically kill their exports to Europe dead, since they can hardly export an engine that is deemed to harmful at home. European manufacturers such as Audi and VW will continue to send 1.5s to the USA, competing with Ford & Co, while producing more powerful engines for European consumption and export to Asia, killing Ford in those countries as well. Ford will be reduced to fighting for a piece of the domestic pie. It’s not going to happen.

As for population, do you really think that making inroads to the SL interior will make things worse for our national parks than they already are? A planned infrastructure will enable nature to be also protected, whereas today, it is exploited by people just trying to stay afloat in areas they are struggling to survive in.

David,

Of course, for any change there needs to be the will and if there is no will there will be no change. People will never cut back on their consumption voluntarily because they realise that their own personal contribution to the global problem is infinitissimal. If you ask an average man on the street if he is prepared to kill a cow and eat it he will most probably say no. But will he be prepared to stop buying beef in the hope that if more do the same they could collectively save the lives of more cattle? I doubt it. So even if we have a whole population of people who favour ending the slaughter of cattle it is almost impossible to achieve it unless the govt legislates agains it. (This is only and example. I am not a crusader for banning the slaughter of cattle)

In the same way many people realise that the only way to address environmental issues is reduce consumption. However they will not change their habits as long as they feel others will continue to do it. Therefore government regulation are the only feasible way of achieving something like this.

Today the way contries are trying to introduce these behaviours is by making it increasinghly expensive to run a 5.0 litre guzzler than a 1.5 litre car. But I fear these measures are not drastic enough.

I doubt if Chinese and Indian manufacterers are the problem. They already use 1.5l engines It is the Germans and the Americans. Mainly the Americans who are producing the guzzlers.

Sure, we can crowd more people into Sri Lanka at the expense of our wilderness areas. But would it be worth it? What would we gain by it?

If a country were were to ban the manufacture and use of cars with engines over 1.5 litre it means they stop importing them too. So how could a manufacturer elswhere exploit the situation and increase their market share within that country? If the EU, US and Japan take the lead that alone would result in a huge reduction in emmisions. Chinese and Indian cars are not as thirsty anyway.

A bus with 100 passengers riding in it witll always be greener than 100 people driving about in 100 cars.

Dear all,

The one thing that we must address is the fossil carbon cost of consumerist development. Every person consuming ten times more than an year before has added ten more people at his original rate of consumption. To base ‘Development’ on consumption, leads not to a dead end, it leads to a cliff !

Kadphises, SL is nowhere near overpopulated, and even if the population doubles in 35 years it is manageable given the probable technological advances over time. Vast swathes of SL away from the main roads are largely unpopulated, and an improved transport infrastructure will enable people to live further and further away from urban centres where they work and are forced to live presently.

Countries like the US take for granted that they will have to bail out Africa, and take that as a given for being what they are. They’ve been doing it for most of the past 60 years, long before environmental issues became headlines.

Engines may be made by a relatively few companies, as you say, and I use the word “relatively” quite broadly because in fact there are quite a few engine manufacturers out there, especially when you include the new boys in China, India, etc. But the fact is that the numbers don’t matter. Look how few control the petroleum industry; and yet they are able to prevent real change in energy use.

Yes it might seem pretty cool if every car had a 1.5-litre diesel, but only if everyone used their cars as a utility, and was happy to be like everyone else. Fact is, many people want their cars to represent themselves, and be fun as well as utilitarian. A manufacturer or marque that suddenly decided to restrict its engine lineup to just one model, will see a huge dive in sales. You may say that it won’t matter if everyone does it, but there just isn’t a way to make everyone do it. So as long as some won’t, those that do will lose out. That basic fact applies to other industries too.

It’s all very well to say make cities pedestrian areas and rely on public transport, but the reality is that except for the First World, most cities have inadequate public transport, and are incapable of implementing such a system. Plus there’s nothing green about big buses and trains that run on diesel.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

There has been a consensus among human beings around the world that we need to control the human population.

How many national laws are adhered to by the government itself, leave aone the international laws?

Why did we a have a conference on climate change in Sri Lanka at the same time as the one in Durban?

Will those responsible for arranging the Sri Lankan Conference reply please?