TomPaine: Green, Efficient Excess

[marmar]

In the 19th century, inventors and engineers were noticing a peculiar phenomenon: As machines in general became more efficient, they used more fuel, not less. That was because efficiency brought the cost down and more people than ever bought them, and used them more often.

There’s no reason to believe that this theory is, in the main, any less applicable today. Think not of the individual unit or system, but of the big picture. Most automobiles are more efficient than they were decades ago, but in toto they use more petroleum and spew more carbon today. Even replacing older models with highly efficient cars is problematic: up to one-quarter of all energy a car uses in its lifespan goes into the manufacture of the car. Creating and maintaining a national roadway system also adds to the output of carbon.

According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, “The average American personal vehicle uses 570 gallons of gasoline per year, which results in the emission of 11,400 pounds of carbon dioxide.” Even if widespread introduction of hybrid cars cut emissions by one-third—a wildly hopeful estimate—the move would not stop the buildup of CO2, just slow the rate. Right now, there are more registered cars than people in the United States, and making them more fuel efficient would probably encourage people to buy more of them.

.......snip........

So in short, then answer is no, we can’t reduce global warming just by introducing greener power generation, and by producing green consumer technology. There is only one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that is to use much, much less energy and to have far fewer things. But that’s the problem.

I recently attended an Apollo Alliance luncheon. (Full disclosure: TomPaine’s parent organization, the Campaign for America’s Future, is an important part of the alliance.) The alliance promotes energy-efficient, green technology to create and maintain jobs in the United States. Featured speakers were Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Change To Win labor federation Chair Anna Burger. They all stressed that the changes they are promoting will sustain a middle-class future for us and our children.

The problem is, middle-class culture and middle-class values rest on the achievement of, or at least the pursuit of, material comfort—and in too many cases, moving well beyond comfort to excess and redundancy. To be middle class, as we understand it, is to be a consumer.

The complete piece is at: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/01/green_efficient_excess.php

[kestrel91316]

1. I already don't have the comfortable, secure middle class life I

grew up with. Other people need to step up to the plate and live with less, too. There's only so much sacrificing I can do. I refuse to live in a mud hut in a freeway right-of-way.

[amandabeech]

2. No votes for the truth.

That's why so many people think that there will be very few changes until things get really, really rough and folks are ready for a little truth.

I don't see any presidential candidate other than Kucinich capable of much truth, and Dennis, bless his heart, isn't going to get the nomination.

Does anyone here really get what the Apollo Alliance is all about? I've been to their website, but I can't find a unifying force or objective clearly state, although every progressive organization seems to be involved. But to do what? What am I missing?