"Green Industry: In Its Basic Form It Means We All Have To Buy New Stuff - Lots Of It"

[hatrack]

Let’s get something straight about green industry: in its basic form it means we all have to buy new stuff … lots of it. As an industrial policy that will create jobs and increase spending, it’s pretty sound. As an environmental policy, it’s largely a fraud.

Nowhere is it more disingenuous than the pursuit of the fuel-efficient car. In their effort to stave off collapse of their industry, auto executives have continually cited their efforts are building the high-efficiency cars of the future. The problem is, there are no cars of the future, and the looming catastrophe of global pollution, including climate change, will never be solved by building more cars – efficient or otherwise.

We’d desperately like to believe that there is a way to preserve our car-centered civilization, while simultaneously placating the gods of atmospheric warming. Even the president-elect believes it, and Obama made fuel-efficient cars a central part of his energy policy. He promised a $7,000 tax credit to hybrid car buyers, aiming for a million plug-in hybrids, getting 150 mpg, by 2015. He wants to put an additional million completely plug-in vehicles by the same year. And he’s willing to federal funds up for research, or at least he was before we lost all our money.

Even on its face, this seems like a tepid response to climate change. At the moment there are upward of 250,000,000 registered vehicles in the United States – more than there are licensed drivers. Converting one percent or so of them to greater fuel efficiency is not likely to do very much in the time needed to act. Nevertheless, the hope is that introduction of a new generation of electric and semi-electric will eventually lead to a replacement of our entire fleet of gas-guzzlers. Maybe. But the bigger problem is that increasing fuel efficiency has never led to an overall reduction in pollutants. In fact, efficiency has always led to more production and consumption.

EDIT

http://www.progressive.org/mag/mpdubro020309.html

[NickB79]

1. Which is why I can't reconcile new road-building and green industry in the same stimulus package

They are diametrically opposed, yet there they are.

[eridani]

8. Indeed. No new roads. Fix the ones we have and let it go at that n/t

[NickB79]

10. Ack, it gets even worse: tax credits to buy new cars added to stimulus package

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/04stimulus.html?_r=1&ref=us

"Angling to spur automobile sales as part of the economic stimulus package, the Senate voted to add an $11 billion provision to the bill that will allow most Americans to claim a tax deduction for the sales tax and any loan interest on the purchase of a new car between Nov. 12, 2008, and the end of 2009."

No mention of hybrids, electric vehicles or such, so someone buying an SUV could use this deduction just as easily as someone buying a Prius.

:banghead:

[kestrel91316]

2. To be truly green, you would only upgrade to more energy-efficient stuff

when the old stuff is no longer functional. I am still using my perfectly good crt tv that I inherited from my grandmother in 1999. It stays until it no longer works, because the energy cost of manufacturing a replacement should be delayed as long as possible, IMHO.

[phantom power]

3. Reminds me of something our AC sales dude said...

Very few people can afford their $10K air conditioners (which until recently were $13K). And nobody can get financing for them either. I wonder how many jobless families out here will have their AC bonk on them this summer. I wonder what they will do. I'm thinking that kind of thing can be the final straw that causes a family to mail in they keys, and move elsewhere.

[jwirr]

4. I read everything James Howard Kunstler writes and one of the

things he has been saying is that we are spending a lot of money on things that we will see as a big waste in the not to distant future.

I have really mixed feelings about all these ideas that are promoting the idea that we can just find new ways to continue to live the same way. Highway infrastructure over mass transit is one of the areas that really upsets me. Whenever you read an economist talk about recovery there is never any mention of global warming or cheap oil recovery or any of the population problems. They just think money forgetting the big picture.

[Kolesar]

5. Too bad Alec Dubro cannot cite that Americans are driving more miles

I would like to see some data.

A lot of this reads like he just wrote what he was thinking without researching it

And there’s another intractable problem: the very thing that makes tires so useful – comfort, stability, adhesion – also produces immense rolling friction. In order for us to makes cars that are maneuverable and relatively safe, they have to grip the road, which takes buckets of energy to overcome. ...

Immense!

[NickB79]

9. Here is one link with a graph of miles driven per year in the US since 1980

http://mobikefed.org/2008/06/miles-driven-in-us-down-even-more.php

Only in the past 2 years has it stabilized and then declined.

[Kolesar]

11. 32% population increase while miles traveled increased 88%

http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-01.pdf

300 million / 227 million humans
3 trillion miles / 1.6 trillion miles

There are other factors such as increased commercial driving, but 88% still is a significant increase.

This was in a period when oil prices plummeted as Mexican, North Sea, and Alaskan oil came online. Old Bush colluded with the Saudis to keep soften the price of oil to devalue the Soviet's valuable export (oil) as an economic weapon.

The inflation adjusted price of gasoline was above $3.00 / gallon for a long period in the early 1980s. The cheap price in the late 1980s and 1990s got people to drive and caused more driving and more sprawl.

Thanks for the data.

[XemaSab]

6. K&R

The problems created by a consumer society will never be solved with a consumer response.

[Gregorian]

7. Amen.

I canceled my subscription to Design News in 1992 because of all of their blabbing about green this and green that.


However... However, what's the alternative? I have to laugh and then cry. I remember seeing a bumper sticker that said "Save the planet, kill yourself".

I think the most important thing is for people to realize the truth about our situation. We can't go back without grave hardship and disaster, and we can't go forward without great sacrifice and intelligent use.

It ain't pretty. And I claim that the economic disaster we are currently sustaining is a direct result of our consumptive behavior.

Thanks for the post. Some may see it as being negative. But some see it for what it is. The truth.

[XemaSab]

12. I love this article

I'm kicking it back to the top. :)

[GliderGuider]

13. "there is simply no way to maintain both the atmosphere and personal transportation."

Even if the population were frozen at its present level, even if economic growth stopped the sheer number of people wanting – and under the present regime, need – personal transportation makes any plan to reduce car pollution by increasing efficiency is futile. The personal automobile must be abandoned, and quickly.

Somebody's been reading his Kunstler. And Jevons too! Ya gotta love the guy. :thumbsup:

[spin]

14. Working from home could significantly reduce traffic...

When you drive into a city, you see enormous office buildings. People travel miles to these office buildings from their comfortable homes. They then park their vehicle, enter the building, and ride an elevator to the floor their company occupies. Finally they enter a cubicle with a desk, chair and a computer. They toil away in front of the computer for eight hours with a few breaks. Then they leave the building and journey home in their car.

In this age of computers, many people could work out of their homes. For a moderate investment, a company could pay for the cost to set up a computer station in the employees home. The employees activity could easy be monitored by a supervisor from his/her home. The savings to the company and for the customers would be enormous. Just figure the overhead of an office in a large downtown skyscraper.

Some companies are moving in this direction. A co-workers wife worked for an insurance company and was the Florida regional manager The company closed all their offices and allowed all their employees to work out of their homes. Occasionally, the staff would meet at a rented conference room.

Why drive here?


To work here...


When you could work here?


Ditching the office could also provide businesses with a leg up in the scramble to recruit and retain talent. For starters, location would no longer limit a company's employment pool — gifted Kansans wouldn't be forced to uproot their lives for opportunities in, say, California. Also, based on the average American's commute time, driving speed, and vehicle specs — and assuming that gas costs $4 per gallon — a telecommuter would save around $1,200 a year on fuel alone — an instant salary bump, of sorts.

Perhaps you've been an office drone for so long that you can't imagine life without fuzzy, low-slung cubicle walls. Well, given that the typical American house is now over 2,500 square feet — up more than 60 percent since the early '70s — surely you can find room to build your own cube. Add some stale coffee and a buzzing fluorescent light and it will feel just like... well, you know where.
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-10/st_essay

[The2ndWheel]

15. "The employees activity could easy be monitored by a supervisor from his/her home."

I'd rather be an office drone.

So will we have to stand in front of the monitor and do exercises in the morning? Our only escape an old book in the corner to write our thoughts in? Is that the way 1984 came to be? The external corporation became too expensive, so it was moved into the home?

[spin]

16. Office drone, whatever you do on your office computer...

and your activities while you are at work are more than likely monitored.

Most big corporations read your email, monitor your internet activity and perhaps even count your keystrokes. Some corporations are more intrusive than that. The company I worked for before I retired was able to monitor where you were at in the building, how long you took on breaks and how many times you went to the bathroom.

And our cities are starting to copy London, where you are almost constantly on camera if you are outdoors. Your cell phone will tell where you're at and there's an excellent chance that your calls and text messages are monitored or at least collected somewhere. There's also a good chance that what you post on DU is also monitored and your home computer's travels on the internet can be traced.

Yes, it does look like we are living in an age similar to the one described in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. For example we appear to have a Ministry of Truth:

The propaganda arm of Oceania's regime, controlling information: news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

The Ministry of Truth was very busy during the eight years of the Bush administration.

And yes, if we ever do get universal health care, you probably will be tested to make sure that you are not using illegal drugs, smoking or abusing alcohol. And if your doctor feels you should exercise, you probably will have to prove that you obeyed his instructions.

Remember that it matters not rather you are an office drone or work at home for the corporation, you are just a wage slave. Your credit card balance, your mortgage and that meager health care plan you pay through the nose for, insure that you remain in your place.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Exactly

So why the hell would we want to keep this going?

[spin]

19. Changing our status as wage slaves...

will require education of the masses. This will be a difficult task as The Ministry of Truth is very effective at convincing people that anything that in any way resembles socialism is a terrible idea. Many people seriously believe that Universal Heath Care would bankrupt our system and that we would receive a lower quality of medical care then we do today. Many people avoid taking vacations or sick time in this country because they fear the loss of their jobs. They tirelessly slave away at their jobs and ignore the true enjoyment of life and family. They will tell you that they live in a free society without realizing that there is a collar around their neck.

But the original post didn't deal with this problem. It primarily dealt with "green industry" and the efforts to produce a more fuel-efficient car so as to preserve our dependence on motor vehicles as a means to travel to work.

My suggestion as to encourage people to work at home in our computerized civilization. The more people who work out of their homes, the fewer cars will be on the roads. Fewer cars would mean less dependence on fossil fuel, imported or not. We would create less pollution to ruin our environment. Those who were able to use their home as their workplace would find themselves with more time to enjoy life. Few people find the daily commute to and from work enjoyable.

Also we could stop wasting money and energy on many large buildings filled with cubicles. We wouldn't constantly have to build new roads. Maintenance costs on our existing highway infrastructure would decrease.

But we will still be a nation of the big corporations, for the big corporations and of the big corporations. The big corporations control the politicians we elect. The truly rich will get richer, and the middle class will continue to disappear.

Perhaps a total collapse of our society will be the catalyst for change. At the rate we are going, this may not be that far off in the future.

[Xithras]

17. It doesn't even require a home office.

I read a story a few years back about a bunch of workers (about 20 of them) who lived in Tracy California and commuted 65 miles (1.5 hours) each way to work in Cupertino every day. Their employer wasn't interested in allowing them to telecommute, but they eventually convinced them to rent a basic office space in an inexpensive business park right in Tracy. The employees took a small pay cut to help fund the remote office (the pay cut was substantially less than they were already spending in gas every month), and in return got to work only minutes from their homes. The company equipped the offices with webcams so they could be remotely monitored, but otherwise treated it as an offsite work location like any other.

It was hailed as a great experiement at the time, and I have no idea how well it worked out for them, but the basic idea seemed pretty sound. If the workers are in suburbia, move the jobs there. There's little reason to work in a central office nowadays.