the consumer law of the conservation of energy

I asked this question today of a renewable energy expert:

What are some of the regulatory changes necessary to uphold energy conservation so intrinsic to renewable adoption and how can these economically advantage consumers?

Please send your ideas.


Here is one that may follow the natural capitalism thema:

Privately build apartment buildings must contribute 40 per cent of all energy required by residents and after X number of years of private ownership the 'land' that each apartment represents falls back into public ownership.


Some of the drivers of this idea are that multi-level buildings extrapolate on surface rights ownership principles entrenched in the economy but that there is less economic benefit to the current methods of deriving income from each new surface level than is represented by the impact on the environment.

Another pretext is that economic and political systems are impacted by centralization of freedoms: that is to say that with either system and related sub-systems ultimate freedom would be complete factional control. This is the balance of type that impinges on personal freedoms as well.

The penultimate reason is economic deconstruction. Making new ownership from old. Making public of the private.
We currently run systems that bias toward the privatization of, for lack of a better term, the public. Using the word public in some way favors the idea that unowned or ungiven everything is public. You would have to believe that government serves the public in order to support the belief that anything handed to the private by government is public in the first place.

Anyway, semantics and self aggrandized argument aside, land lease/ownership is a great example of how economic deconstruction is outpaced by the ability of land to provide capital that is centrally amassed and that creates unending dependencies on the developments placed on those lands.

Still, it wouldn't serve anyone to usurp control of lands and change rules overnight. But it also doesn't serve the public to allow unscalable capital towers to dominate the economic landscape. Such a system does not entrench altruism where an enterprise is no longer individual or concerned with more than its own survival. Further to this is the theocratic indoctrination of the enterprise in its ownership and development of land. As the eternal, just so long as the lease is paid, the revenue stream lasts forever.

An analysis of various political systems and regulatory environments reveals historical wariness around any talk of adopting any limitations to apparent individual freedom, however, when an incorporation no longer mitigates the behavior or obligations of mere individuals you have a collective whose cause is to serve a singular purpose. Fortunately, for the most part, this specialization works because other collective forces also act simultaneously to balance the cultural bandwagon.

The individual, however, is forced to then politicize the party line to the effect of marketing its virtues whatever the impact of achievement may be. Another characteristic of the this corporate organism is its nuclear oligarchy in competition seeking the destruction or occlusion of other organisms discarding ideology as waste products of victory.

Its monotheism is apparent in its evangelism to subsume that can only be telegraphed as far as its reach.

Anyway, now the argument is taking a turn toward a partisan politic.

In the creation of the private the death of it must also be present to serve the public that expects the nutrient of change on which to subsist. And within change the understanding that some needs exist must tailor the regulatory environment of conduct and ownership.

Even the patenting of life may depend on it.




-- the need for energy can be created but never destroyed --