I'm tempted to shed light on the ecology (better, ecosystem) of the tax evasion. Sorry Pavan!!

Yes!! it actually is CNN iReport to shed the light, not me. Please read this:

Germany and France have become expert in implantation of the energy powerhouses out of biomass methane (CH4). In France the name of the society is NASKEO ENVIRONNEMENT (web site:http://www.naskeo.com) whose CEO is Aur�lien Lugardon. This above mentioned society can install the whole lot for the cost of 1.5 million euros in the EU, treating 10,000 tons of garbage per year producing about 250 kW of electricity, supplying for 1,000 homes with 500 heating systems�EU standard (ISO 9001 & ISO 9002).

If Nepal adapts such biomass powerhouses by means of joint venture, it shall cost very less, covering about 2,000 homes. Those municipalities that want to get rid of their garbage at a lower cost, and at the same time produce methane gas powerhouses could consult the respective Embassy, if need be.

Due to global warming it is widely speculated that there would be no more snow glaciers in the Himalayas in near future as it has been noticed in North America around Denver. The rarity of glaciers in Himalayas means no more water streaming down the Nepalese rivers where hydroelectric dams are already constructed or are supposed to be constructed in future. By the way, will that be again a vain effort to electrify Nepal with hydroelectricity?

To be sure, why not play safe by using other ways of producing electricity by using, solar system, aeolian at al? Or by implanting biomass treatment process plants to deal with the acute problem of garbage as mentioned above thereby killing two birds with one stone, namely, garbage treatment resulting in the production of energy for lighting.

#ASP!

Why have you become such a nasty entrepot of bile by throwing your torrent of invective toward those who just try to convince you of the benefits of ecology and economics when they are conceived together?

You exactly remind me of a fiction about an emotionally disturbed Gregory House, not less, that we have these days on the telly who plays a role of one of the deconstructionist tossers, but without important ingredient called wit. It is too true that your comments regarding this article give me the impression of one of the most sophomoric ones I have ever encountered as a browser in any online frothpit...

Don't flare up at the slightest thing!?!

To be sure, why not play safe by using other ways of producing electricity by using, solar system, aeolian at al?"

This is complete nonsense. There are all kinds of alarmist claims about the consequences of global warming, but nobody anywhere has ever seriously suggested that it will make hydroelectricity impractical. This is not "playing safe" but simply inventing stuff.

3. There was no nasty bile or invective in the reply #9 from ASP. It gave simple factual responses showing that the claims in the article were wrong.

So paternalistic! So sadomasochistic! So ruinous and rancorous!

 

In my abdomen, a gas has accumulated called CO2. Each time I fart comes Chloro-flouro Carbon that disturbs Obama and he asks me to reduce these emissions. But don't forget that I have so oppressive gastric and constipation...and I sit longer in Kyoto toilets just fighting...

The co-ordinates of blame game are disturbingly scaled ....

The poltroon inside the parquet floors and vaulted ceilings is the man who thinks he shows a lot of maturity but ...

The highly ornate rococo arts don't just belong to a man..it is an epochal exuberance.....

The immense gravitas of the masthead wonders the audiences for encores..in the epithet of Death Whispered a Lullaby..

The putative taut is a reflex of duel inside the carceral continuum of sheer stuipidity..the douse of gasoline..

Usually, I don't make it a habit of responding to commentators or engaging with faceless commentators, mainly for the reason that I am myself a faceless commentator. I feel there is little to achieve by engaging in dialog when faceless individuals are driven by ideology, dogma and entrenched opinion than by one thing that should matter the most--Fact.

However, B2B (#10)'s comment verges a little too much on being slanderous; therefore, slanderous nature (not it's substance, which is conspicuously lacking) of the comment deserves my direct response.

The commentator in question did not question the meaning and intent of any of the three points I made in my original comment:

1. That Nepal's GDP is one the world's lowest and that Nepalis are already being "economical". Paavan's article would have been better addressed to citizens of an affluent country where waste is the norm. Nepal's is an entirely different case. Nepal's effort should be, must be to grow its economy so that the fruits of economic growth is shared by all. To tell people, as Paavan appears to have done, to live with little, when they don't have much to begin with, is implausible.

2. That the logic that Nepal need not worry about "transitioning" to low-carbon economy is simply flawed. Nepal ranks 204 in a list of 214 countries in per capita carbon emission per year (in tonnes). Just google it up, or wiki it up. Here's the link, if you care to look it over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita.

Nepa's per capita carbon output per year is so log that if emission cap-and-trade scheme were to ever become successful, Nepal could actually make money just by selling emission credit surplus. The point, if B2B (#10) had cared to discern, is that Nepal doesn't emit a whole lot of CO2 to worry about it too much. Having said this, though, I'd go a step further and say that Nepal should remain a low-carbon emitting nation. The implication of that is that Nepal should not try to, for example, have thermal plant to produce electricity, but should focus more on developing hydropower (which is one of the cleanest energy available).

3. There's nothing wrong with solar panel devices, but unless and until there is a breakthrough in technology and economies of scale, this technology will remain nothing more than a "boutique" technology. Nepali people must know whre to put their priority and must not be swayed by impractical argument.

B2B (#10), if you want to accuse somebody of being an "entrepot of bile", of using "invectives", of being an "emotionally disturbed Gregory House" (apparently what you are trying to say with your hyperbole is that I am a cynic--trust me, I am not. I just choose to be practical, than fashionable), of being "deconstructionist" (whatever that means at your sub-philosophical discourse), and of being "sophomoric", and "flaring up at trivial things"--I have but one suggestion: First, stop being all that yourself.

I may lack in wit, B2B, but you lack in substance and logic.

The transition to a ow-carbon economy presents employment opportunities by opening new markets, and by stimulating eco-innovation and investment in more efficient production techniques.�

We are NOT in a transition to a low carbon economy. We ARE a low carbon economy already.

The power crisis in Nepal is hurting the economy, but could have the unintended side benefit of spurring the manufacture of alternate energy systems. Investment in the solar industry has seen tremendous growth in the last few years as people began to seek alternative renewable sources of energy for their homes and workplace. Necessity becomes the mother of invention, and helps the economy over the long run.

Investment in solar instead of hydro is not a benefit. It is a loss. The cost per unit of energy from solar is 10-20 times that of energy from hydro. For Nepal, hydropower is greener and less expensive than solar.�

This is typical of the "cut and paste" type of writing where people suspend their critical thinking and simply regurgitate what they have swallowed from the donor world.

Nepal neither has much coal, nor has any diesel or natural gas of its own to feed thermal plants. The only way to run thermal plants is by importing these fuels. If Nepal goes thermal, Nepal will become more subservient to India than it already is or has to become.

Thermal is bad enough environmentally; it is more so for geopolitical strategic reasons. As important as I think environmental reason is for not wanting thermal plants, my opposition to thermal is likely more driven by my desire to push Nepal out of India's sphrere of influence.

My initial criticism of Paavan's column is not to oppose her lobbying for "environmental sustainability", which I support to the extent that it does not become deterrent to development, but because of the weak logic she put forward.

I do accept her assertion that protecting the environment does not have to be mutually exclusive with economic growth. Only, she didn't provide a good logic.

What Nepal needs to do is to open the floodgates of development, grow its economy. But, that does not have to mean environmental destruction. Nepal needs to learn how to better manage (eliminate or minimize) negative environmental externalities (i.e., adverse environmental impacts) associated with mismanaged development regulatory process.

Thermal is bad enough environmentally; it is more so for geopolitical strategic reasons. As important as I think environmental reason is for not wanting thermal plants, my opposition to thermal is likely more driven by my desire to push Nepal out of India's sphere of influence."

Nepal and India cannot change their geography so most imports will come through India and, because of that many will come from India. (There will be some change as transport through Nepal from China to India improves and as air transport becomes cheaper).