[LINK] NBN may increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Bullsh**

Tom Koltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Thu Apr 9 15:44:42 AEST 2009

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Michael Still
> Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2009 12:56 PM
> To: Tom Worthington
> Cc: link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] NBN may increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions
> Tom Worthington wrote:
> > The government's $43B National Broadband Network plan has 
> > implications for greenhouse gas emissions. An example of a negative 
> > effect is that higher bandwidth devices use more
> electricity and will
> > therefore cause more greenhouse gas emissions.

This is like saying in 1957..... Television will cause additional Carbon
Emissions - Don't buy a TV - Drive to the Movies instead.

> I don't think the world is that simple though. These digital 
> services are often replacing things which are even worse. For 
> example -- news websites are better for the environment than 
> having a teenager throw dead tree at your house every morning 
> (probably from a car).

A very Good Point Michael.
A cursory analysis of inidividual shopping habits reflects the downturn
of bricks and mortar "supastores"
as a direct result of online ecommerce iniatives - with the subsequent
reduction in emissions from physically attending the supacentre (fuel,
co2, traffic congestion increasing co2, particle release on bitumen

Nope - all in all - ecommerce is decidedly a quantum saving in harmful

Electricity can be generated emission free via nuclear technologies with
the left over U238 being disposed of in a number of ways from being
mixed into current enriched uranium fuel pellets to


Being sent to the sun via rocketship so as not to pollute future

(The cost to dispatch the entire Plutonium production of Lucas Heights
for thirty years is considerably less than the cost of one ICBM

Quote from - "IPPNW and The Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research. Plutonium: Deadly Gold of the
Nuclear Age. Cambridge, MA: International Physicians Press, 1992. 178
pp. Chapter 7,
"Warhead Dismantlement and Plutonium Disposal". 

We have the technology - just not the get-up and go (or the current
financial imperitive) to facilitate same. This is regardless of the
facts that we are in neglecting this option - writing cheques on our
childrens and their childrens lives that we wont have to see bounce. We
and the current crop of politicians will be wormfood long before Soylent
Green scenarious become a fact of life.

Population wide FUD distributed by advertising revenue hungry media
conglomerates have for too long kept back the march of progress.

ICT people need to raise expectations - not become involved in the
distribnution of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. 
Tom, I understand that you speak from many yerars of ICT experience -
and normally I find that you provide clear concise, logical and accurate
commentary, but on this occasion - you not only missed the goalposts -
you filled the ball with helium so it will float upwards for a long time
and never go over the goalpost. - If you are not going to present a
balanced argument - please stop perpetuating incorrect propaganda which
is given more credence bacause of the issuing authority. 

Yes, spreading FUD will make reporters call you for a quote - no - it
doesn't help the economy.

Sorry Tom - not only are you wrong - you are sensationally wrong. The
problem only exists in countries like Australia where political lobby
groups have presented the case of converting to a clean fuel as being
one that would cost the Coal extractors too much money.

The reality of the argument is not that more Fibre optic lasers and
bigger digital switches cause more CO2 emiisions - Coal Fired power
plants do.

I expect more from Tom Worthington than this CR**.

No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus

More information about the Link mailing list