I've just read an article on MSN / Sympatico called "The cheapest way to save the Earth", which actually made sense to me - and it is about lifestyle changes!
Now a caveat: I don't actually agree with it all, but I do agree with the main premise - that going green is not about buying all the latest and greatest eco-alternatives that come along. Something I have been saying for years: you cannot consume your way out of catastrophic man made global warming (if you are so inclined to believe in it) to arrive at a better place.
The point that resonates the most with me, and which I have always considered to be at odds with the whole green lifestyle change, is the use of electricity. We can't continue building constant supply generation stations that burn things - according to the lobbyists at least - so we are left with an increasing electricity gap. Yet, conversely, we are encouraged to buy vehicles to plug into that same supply.
Although the article in question provides a good plan to consume less, save money, and not go green broke, it does of course signal the death of the new green economic boom times promised by environmentalists and presidential candidates. But everything has a price.(as does MDF [Medium Density fibreboard] made from sunflower seed shells and that is $5.00 sq ft or $160 a sheet, go green baby!)
Consumerism, Economics and Energy
The western world is built on the back of consumers, with 70% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in the USA coming directly as a result of consumer spending. This is why the USA is the world's largest economy: things are produced and purchased on a massive scale, with huge trade imports to feed the needs of spending customers.
Now lets look at China. With many people moving from subsistence living into paying jobs in construction and manufacturing industries, the number of Chinese consumers is increasing with the effect is that GDP is growing by 8.5% on average each year. Having a citizenry with money and desires is the engine that fuels a modern human economy. People also demand more energy as they go from hut to apartment, and when the businesses where they work are operational their lifestyles become based upon a firm energy foundation.
This is why China is building power plants at the rate it is now, just trying to keep pace with demand. Meanwhile, power projects in the USA and in Europe are being cancelled as investors become more and more risk averse to the uncertain regulatory future of fossil-fuelled plants and the unreliability of renewable power systems.
Much to the delight of man made global warming supporters, renewable power sites based on wind and solar are being installed at unprecedented rates, thanks mostly to governmental subsidies and rising energy prices. Yet coal fired power plants to operate aluminium smelters are being built on a massive scale in Asia to handle the demand for this energy intensive manufactured material. Visit aluminium producer Hydro North America's website and verify the amount of material that was used in The Nevada Solar One CSP project;
"By the end of the project, Hydro had supplied over 7 million pounds of aluminium extruded tubing and components, fabricating nearly every piece, and coordinating just-in-time deliveries." - That is a lot of aluminum ( A 747-400 consists of 147,000 pounds (66,150 kg) of high-strength aluminum.)
Since many aluminium smelters are in Asia, I guess it is OK for western countries to manufacture using these materials because imports are not subject to the CO2 emission reduction levels being called for in developed countries...
By building energy infrastructure, Asia will soon be energy rich, meaning abundant cheap energy, compared to the western world where energy prices are rising and demand is running into dwindling capacity. The renewable energy that the West is infatuated with cannot replace base load requirements reliably and quickly - a coal plant is able to produce 800Mw compared to a CSP (Concentrated Solar Plant) which produces just 64Mw.
Loopholes, and Dealing with the Inevitable
The first paragraph of the article states that the best way to save the planet and so forth is to consume less.
Now you wonder how a capitalist can bet behind this sort of idea? It's simple: if the western world consumes less, it will slow the emerging markets down to a more reasonable and manageable growth rate. It will help curb inflation that is rising faster each fiscal quarter. They, the emerging markets, will continue to demand more and more and if we can divert the energy saved into production capacity we can reverse the 20th century trend from producer to service provider that has transformed western economies. The cost will be the loss of economic position in the world and the emergence of a new economic order ruled by Asia. We will have to open our borders to more immigrants as workers will be needed in this transformation, which is actually a good thing (see below), but is another consequence ill-considered by the environmental movement.
We had our turn at the helm, and since we are such evil stewards of the earth we deserve to pay this price, right?
Yet the new rulers are rising in the exact same way the West did, by burning fossil fuels. In doing so, they are exploiting an environmental loophole: that of per-capita emissions, where countries that hold a third of the world's population effectively get a free climate pass. A more reasonable process would be the calculation of emissions targets by land area percentage and then extrapolated over the oceans. Since we are talking on a planetary scale, each country should be responsible for the physical area it occupies and the corresponding amount of atmosphere. Why should I give a a smaller country my share of atmosphere to pump emissions into with no regard, when I get a much smaller portion based on population and have to limit emissions?
As an alternative plan to help western countries by-pass emissions caps, I suggest that they simply bring in enough immigrants to double their populations, place them in subsistent living conditions, just like they had before, and carry on as normal. This is the loophole exploited in emerging countries, so why can we in the West not do the same thing? Fair is fair.
Radical? Crazy? Genius?
Let me know if I am completely off my rocker on this one ( I suspect I am ). However, I cannot see any other way to deal with the inevitable adoption of Global Greenhouse Gas Regulations. As I watch governments succumb one by one to the perceived demands for action, the writing is on the wall regardless of the will of the majority.
I say majority, because I do not see any huge public outcries in daily life, except maybe the bio-fuel caused food riots in less developed countries who are now demanding action, or earth day / hour / week / and the regular <fill in the blank with any fringe cause> marches and protests de jour.
Closing note: This post was born out of a sense of frustration and disenfranchisement and is not meant to act as any sort of blueprint for the future, nor do I specifically endorse this as policy, unless of course I am right.