Some interesting points being made and I'm having a slow day so thought I'd just chip in as well. By the way, the basic principles of conservation and improving efficiency are fundamentally sound, as long as the underlying costs are acceptable and I’m all in favour of the proposed mosquito abatement policy!

The true cost of newer technology (e.g. solar panels), including direct, indirect, running costs and ultimate disposal/recycling should be taken into consideration, the same with hybrid cars and other ways to become more efficient with our energy and money. However, if we don't do something purely because it doesn't appear to make direct financial sense right now, then we don't benefit from investment in that industry which improves efficiencies and costs going forward. Just about every technological development costs more than its worth, in the initial stages, but as economies of scale build, it generates a healthy return. Sooner or later we will run out of fossil fuels, that's just common sense, they are not an unlimited resource. So if we begin the move to "better" technologies today then we will see the costs of those technologies come down and efficiencies increase.

If the figures are correct, 300 years to recoup the energy it takes to build a solar panel today, just imagine how quickly we could improve that with a few billion invested in that industry. Look at the speed of technological progress in the other industries and use a little imagination as to what could be achieved.

I agree that nuclear power should be a part of the energy equation and had we not basically stopped development in that industry, primarily due to public safety concerns, I'm sure the technology would have moved on at a much faster pace. Similarly, “clean coal” technology is currently too costly and not yet good enough but, given some investment, it could provide energy for many years to come, without the negative impacts on the environment many are currently concerned about. I understand the NIMBY attitude, I don’t want a nuclear power plant in my neighborhood either, but then again, I also don’t want a coal fired plant, 100 giant wind turbines or a few hundred acres of solar panels. That just means we have to pay the infrastructure costs of getting the energy from the point of generation to where it will be used. How much are we willing to pay to have the power station “out of sight, out of mind”?

Unfortunately many in our business and political worlds are focused on the short term. In politics its all about doing things that will get me or my party elected at the next go around, at best that’s 4 or 5 years. In business terms its about the financial results, sometimes quarterly, certainly annual results. I believe we should be willing to look a little longer term and be willing to invest for a little further down the line.

Too often people disagree simply because they don’t want to agree. If one party says A then the other, automatically, says B just because they feel they can’t be seen to be agreeing with “the enemy”. No group has the exclusivity on good ideas, let’s share and discuss and agree the best way forward. A novel concept, I know, but it doesn’t seem a bad one to me.

OK, back to work now and to day-dreaming about our trip to Little Cayman in May.