[Schroeder]

“We wouldn’t have six billion people on Earth without technology,” said Robinson. “If you reduce energy, you [are also] reducing technology. The biggest problem is people in the third world who die in enormous numbers.”
Avery said that a vast number of people are already suffering in the third world, because they are forced to cook inside their homes.


“The indoor cooking fires in the third world are vastly more harmful to the health of women and children than smoking cigarettes,” said Avery. “If you eliminate their opportunity to move up from burning dung and straw and wood to burning kerosene…then you are eliminating their possibility of having healthy lungs.”

This is the most stupid stuff I heard for a long time. It's not about reducing technology, just the opposite. We shall use better technology that needs less energy. That's the plan. Kyoto doesn't want us to go back to the stone age. We shall reduce our output of CO2 (and other stuff) by ADVANCING in technology.
Here in Germany for example they are developing a new car called LOREMO.
It shall have a gas mileage of 120miles/gallon.
That is just one example how a CO2 reduction can be achieved. I think Mr. Robinson is trying to create panic by scaring people with a horror story of the return of the middle ages. Not very professional IMO.

People in the third world need kerosene to cook? Well, there is a solution for the sunny parts of the world: parabolic reflectors.
They don't need any energy at all. Why isn't he considering this? As if fossil energy would be without any alternatives....

Besides, what are we all supposed to do when we run out of fossil energy?
If we continue like this we will remain extremely dependent on oil. The rising oil price will be disastrous. We have to do something NOW. If we start thinking about this after it has hit us it's surely too late.

In addition, Avery said that energy restrictions cause “an awful lot of premature deaths.”However, if Green Peace decides to eliminate nitrogen fertilizer, even more people will suffer.

I'm not sure whether I understand this text correctly. Is he talking about fertilizers as energy? Or is he claiming that the energy restrictions will kill people and the elimination of nitrogen fertilizers will add to it?

If he claims that the reduction of energy consumption is killing someone I would like to know how that shall be possible. As I already said, we aren't supposed to switch all machines off that we have. We shall develop them further so that they can do the same things as now but with less energy consumption.

“If we eliminate the nitrogen fertilizer, then that will cut the world’s crop fields in half immediately,” said Avery. “Half the world will be hungry.”

I'm no expert for fertilizers but there are alternatives:
.Doc about fertilizers

I'm not sure whether they can be used as substitutes, I have to leave that to someone who knows something about this.

Time to get ugly in this thread I can see..

I did not intend to offend you with my last post. It was just supposed to be an eye opener.