This week I read a variety of short
essays in The Energy Reader about how
humans can live more sustainably. Each
essay argued what the most important thing to do is in order to help make the
world or the United States more sustainable.
With all of these options, which is the most important? Where do we start?
Robert
E. King essentially argued that capping the grid is the most important thing
that can be done to help the energy crisis because it will stop the
ever-growing American need for energy. He
points out that technology will not get us out of the energy crisis because of
Jevon’s paradox. This paradox basically
states that as things become more energy efficient, they are cheaper to use and
people will use them more. As a result
of this, people will continue to use the same amount of energy, or even more,
because of the perceived or actual efficiency increases. The
laws of diminishing returns again applies here, where it becomes harder and
harder to make technologies more efficient after the “low-hanging fruit” are
picked. Efficiency will eventually plateau
as times go on. The argument that
conservation is the most important thing is strong, but his method of obtaining
conservation is debatable. King
recommends a cap on energy, where the United States would stop growing its
energy economy. If new alternative
energies were added, old power plants would be decommissioned. This not only seems like a near-impossible
goal to lobby for, but it also may not be considered fair by many
Americans. Americans today would have to
be very very convinced of the negative effects of climate change before they
would even consider limiting their energy usage in a mandatory fashion.
Shiela
Bowers and Bill Powers argue for more local energy generation as the
centerpiece of America’s energy policy.
They argue that it increases property values, leads to less
environmental impacts because there are less power lines, more secure energy system,
and because it benefits local jobs.
Although alternative energy in general is good, Bowers and Powers argue
that there are many negative impacts to centralized power in general and that
localized is the best way for America to become more energy sustainable.
Other
authors focused on lowering our energy economy through more indirect ways. Harvey Locke made the argument that half of
the land and water on Earth should be protected, which would not only be
ecologically and aesthetically pleasing, but it would also limit how many resources
our energy economy and regular economy could use. Although the thought is great, this argument
seems ideal at best. First of all, it
would take international efforts and regulation across the globe to get this
done. Second of all, it would probably
lead to weaker, developing countries being exploited and the most civilized
ones being saved. Most of all,
businesses would pick the most exploitable areas, and would push the government
for new laws to allow them wherever they please if they run out, just as they
do today. Although Locke makes a good
argument, I do not think fighting for conservation of land and water is the
best solution to our problem.
Bill
McKibben wrote more of a step-by-step approach to ending global warming. He argued that people need to spread the word
about climate change, create strict goals on what the people want to change,
and create a movement to fight for those goals and to show the government that
changes need to be made. It needs to
show the spirit of the American people. Of
all of the arguments to help make the world a more sustainable place, McKibben’s
basic argument has to be the strongest.
Business is probably not going to change on its own; it will continue to
operate in the cheapest and easiest ways possible, by almost only using fossil
fuels. The American government will
continue to support business over the environment as long as lobbyism from
business remains the source of government official campaign funding. Therefore, the force that needs to fight for
the environment is the people. For all
of the other authors’ sustainability goals to happen, a movement from the
masses must occur. It must be from the masses
because victories by minority environmentalist groups are usually
overturned. It must be a movement like
the civil rights movement, where people show consistently that they want
something and will be active enough to get it.
A movement, started by education, is the best way to lead to a more
sustainable future. There are many
things that can be done for the sake of sustainability, but the change will
only be drastic enough to matter if enough people are behind it. The more people who know and care about today’s
environmental problems, the more people will push for better laws and the more
people who will attempt to incorporate sustainability into their jobs and
everyday life.
This
movement will lead to people who care about the environment. Conservation will be emphasized because
people can easily control that in their daily lives. Capping the grid then may seem like a more
reasonable argument that may be supported.
Localized alternative energy will seem to make more sense. Conserving more land and water will seem to
make more sense. With more people
speaking up and acting, more will be able to get done and it will get done
easier and more permanently. The root of
the problem is that American citizens do not care, or do not care enough to act. The first step needs to be environmental
education and the start of a movement. American
citizens must be the force of change, because no one else will be. Then it may be possible to reverse many of
the negative environmental effects we have been causing, before it is too
late.
No comments:
Post a Comment