dohboi wrote:Note that the study specifically does not make any statement about how many cell phones there are, but specifically instead says that six billion have access to them. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that each has their own private phone. You can deny the study if you like, but I'm the only one coming up with actual data on the matter so far.
And none of this is to claim that poverty isn't terrible and pervasive throughout the world. Only that the poor are often more resourceful than we give them credit for. And that villages can do great things collectively, especially with a little help from a government or from a Grameen-type micro lender.
http://www.grameen-info.org/The main point is that, yes, electricity can be expensive. But in many, perhaps most cases, especially in rural areas, its MORE expensive to build a huge centralized coal power plant and then build all the infrastructure to deliver the electricity out to far flung places, than it is to install smaller renewable stations closer to their users. You also lose less through the wires that way.
As to relative consumption rates, according to this study, the richest 20% in the world are responsible for
over half of all consumption. http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp140_2015.pdf (table 4, bottom of page
![Cool 8)](https://peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif)
So obviously that leaves
less than 50% of consumption that the other
80% of people in the world are responsible for.
I don't know how 'middle class' is described, but the richest 20% are by definition not in the 'middle' of the income range globally.
I didn't "deny" the study. What I said is that the several may have more than one phone, with companies owning many as well.
Also, are you aware that phones made in China and elsewhere can be purchased for as low as $8?
About local resourcefulness, that is given. Besides the example you gave, there's also the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan_sharkYou can also find out what poor people do when they have no access to toilets, among other things. In relation to that, one can consider points such as urban migration, lack of infrastructure in rural areas and how that affects the poor, etc.
Localized sources of energy, even without using solar power, has been in place from the start, and often because communities have no choice. But the amount of resources needed to mine, manufacture, and deliver RE components still involves FF. So do toilets and cell phones.
I think Table 4 refers to Mexico.
According to WB data shared here:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-statsas of 2008 the upper 20 pct of the world's population was responsible for 76.6 pct of personal consumption. Similar patterns of inequality can be seen elsewhere. For example, this article states that only around 500 million people are responsible for around 50 pct of CO2 emissions:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/consumptio ... reat/2140/Thus, my point of uneven distribution of resource use and wealth is clear.
Finally, I raised two other points (one elsewhere):
The amount of resources needed to meet even basic needs may be higher than what the biosphere will allow:
https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905and that likely includes even resources cheaper than toilets.
Meanwhile, more poor people worldwide want to move out of poverty:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470and that likely involves more than just cell phones.
With such, how much in FFs, not to mention other material resources, will be needed to support the first? And the second?