ROTFL. Seems that we can add Biology to Physics, Economics, and Geology on the list of the courses flunked ...
The highest part of the food chain *is* the consumer.
This is why the first of the conservation 3 R's is to Reduce use.
If you eliminate consumption = _demand_ you eliminate the mining and transport of the coal, building of additional power plants, inefficiency of coal-> electricity conversion, waste heat pollution, mercury and other pollutant emissions, all of which precede the need to sequester.
Arithmetic 101 : Every single use (eg, residential lighting) is only a small fraction of the total use.
If every use could be reduced as much as residential lighting, we would be much farther down the road to a better balance. The solution will consist in reducing _each_ use to the extent practical and possible and _also_ increase efficiency and reduce pollutant loading at the point of energy conversion. Reductions in energy use for residential lighting was preceded by reductions in commercial lighting including other (non-compact) fluorescent lighting.
And by reductions in residential refrigeration.
And in residential and commercial air conditioning.
And in residential furnaces and boilers
And reductions in heating load through better insulation.
And -- the list goes on and on.
Why don't you rant endlessly about _these_ incremental reductions that have been put in place and are continuing? They are also all only small parts of the overall problem. But in aggregate, the small parts are the _whole_ problem.
Is it because you didn't paint yourself into a corner on these topics as you did about CFLs while on your gratuitous, self-indulgent bashing of academicians and government scientists? On whose every pronouncement you now seem to (finally) hang ?
...Marc Marc_F_Hult