Lots of light bulbs but not bright idea

NPower has just shipped out a ba-gillion energy efficient light bulbs, free of charge without request to its customers.

It has done this because a ban has just been implemented where unsolicited light bulbs are no longer allowed.
Why is it so desperate to give away light bulbs in the first place you ask?
Well there are regulations that the government has given out saying that the energy companies have to pay to make us all more carbon efficient and giving out bulbs like they are going out of fashion is a cheap way to do this.
The problem is that some peoples light aren't going to fit the bulbs and so they are just going to be wasted.
So to break it down to cut down waste they are producing more waste.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that it is a bad idea over all. Even if people don't need them immediately, only an idiot would throw them out. Therefore they will get used eventually, but this whole scheme shows just how unimaginative the companies and governments are being about all this.

They are pledging to cut carbon and they are are trying to do so by getting people to use less, less products, less food, less meat, less electricity, less petrol and so on. There are two problems with this:
1. This sort of change will only shave small amounts of carbon off our usage, if there were big savings to be made, chances are it would have been done already.
2. It goes against the whole character of the modern world.

Allow me to elaborate the second point.

The world is based on more, not less. Problems are solved by more and new, rarely are they solved with old and less.
There is good reason for this being the case. Lets take nuclear weapons as an example. There were lots of protests for nuclear disarmament in the last century. No one listened and a lot of people wasted their time. I'm sorry to say this but if you were in such a protest, you obviously didn't think that far ahead.

Once nuclear weapons were invented, they couldn't be 'uninvented'. If everyone instantly listened to the berks who were protesting it wouldn't have 'uninvented' the bomb. In fact it would probably have the reverse effect.

Once the US had the bomb Russia had to get it in order to be on a level playing field, but that was all. But essentially it was just a deterrent, no one would use it, because if they did they would have several coming their way too.

If the US burned all its papers and everyone gave up their bombs then that would give some real psychopath (read N Korea/Iran/Iraq/Libya) a real reason to make the bomb, because they would be the ONLY people to have it and therefore they would actually be in a position to use it.
Even if there was an international convention that everyone agreed to not to use nuclear weapons, the type of person who wants to blow millions of people into the next life, isn't the type of person who cares much for international conventions. As soon as the bomb was on the scene it was here to stay, the only thing which was more of a deterrent was more sophisticated bombs, or new anti missile technology. New, not old, more not less.

Now lets apply this to carbon. It is the same. If you shave off 5% of your carbon at a cost of £8Bn it means nothing because China is gong to increase their carbon by ten times as much and they are then going to make money from it. This means that those who care get weaker and those who don't get stronger.

The more restraints you put on your industries the more expensive they become and the better the prices of a Chinese factory look in comparison. Whatever you cut out, someone else will expand to fill the gap.

So essentially I'm saying sure having something that 5% more efficient is good, but it isn't going to save the world. And cutting things out altogether just make you poor as a country and as such you just lose influence... and with that goes your chance to change the rest of the world... which by the way, unless you're American or Chinese, is the bit that counts when it comes to carbon.

So then, how does my more and new policy work?

Simple instead of piddling into the wind by making energy companies buy you light bulbs (which by the way they are allowed to increase their charges for, so it is forcing you to buy them rather that getting anything for free in reality) they should be made to spent 10-25% of their profits on covering the sub Sahara in trees or solar panels. Either one, I don't care. Trees will taking carbon on a massive scale for the rest of time. Solar panels will give us free energy. We will have MORE energy and new technology can make it more and more efficient. I don't know how many panels £100m gets you but I bet it is a decent amount.

Instead of becoming weaker because some moron is complaining about air travel, you country because stronger because you can manufacture the panels in your own company giving you more new jobs.

Or you get more new jobs planting trees, heck you could even run a gap year program where unemployed 18-25 olds spend their time baking next to a pool and planting trees (while not getting paid obviously). Good for bored unemployed, good for the environment.

The idea of less, just cripples an economy, decreases employment and standard of life. More energy production from new methods increases jobs, provides free energy and thus makes countries more efficient and increases the standard of life. Hippies, I hope you're listening.