Once in a while I get tired of the environmental/ecological harangue. People should do such-and-such; people should not do so-n-so; we need to etc etc etc.
The question that needs to be addressed–and the one which, consciously or not, drives the resistence of this or any other administration’s apparent lack of response to conservation arguments, drives in fact the endless search for energy and resource, drives the often confusing and conflicting debate in congress is–
What Are People Willing To Give Up To Save The Planet?
In my youth, the Ecology movement was young and one saw many odd and contradictory sights. One that stuck with me to this day was the mock burial of a gas guzzler. Well, it was actually buried–a Buick, if I recall–but the “mock” part was that this represented our conspicuous consumption, Detroit, Big Oil, etc. Many young folk were in attendance. Ceremony was conducted. It was a solemn event.
And everyone got in their cars after and went home. Most of those cars were 8-cylinder Somethings. Few VWs (which would have been the Car Of Opposition To Detroit then). Stereos blasting, air conditioners blowing…
Sure, a lot of those kids no doubt recognized the irony, but that’s the mode of transportation they were stuck with.
Still, it raises the question. Do we consume because we like the act of Consumption? Or is it really a matter of having a better life? Or a life we simply prefer?
Let’s reduce our dependence on oil. First, we start riding bicycles. Certainly that would be healthy for us, we have an obesity problem. But there would be a significant fraction of the population that would die if they had to pedal a bike instead of drive of car. Overweight, poor health to begin with, susceptible to heat related illness, or just too old. And what about those missing a limbs? Well, something would have to be done about them to accommodate their problems. So not everyone bikes. Oh, and what about people with toddlers? Soccer moms would be hard put to pedal their progeny to games. Maybe something could be set aside for them.
Mass transit? Not undoable, but if you dumped the population currently commuting by car onto a mass transit system, you would in some cases have to quintuple the size of the trains or the fleet of buses. And of course people would have to learn to get along with people they’ve never cared to be that close to before.
Stop using plastics.
Ah, but the sterility factor of plastics in hospitals, to name one example, is peerless. Not to mention that suddenly we’d be back to using “natural” products to make all these things currently made of plastic. Wood, certainly, but that’s a significant drain on forests, far more than farming or papermaking or even the housing industry currently uses. Iron, aluminum, copper all require mining. And the energy to machine all those things might edge out the energy used to injection mold them. And they would wear out faster, but that’s not really much of an issue in a throw-away society. And wood might be easier in some instances to recycle–or would it? If you pulp it, you can make paper or plywood. Hmm. Iron, aluminum, and so forth, certainly, but again the energy required…
Okay, let’s talk about the raw energy we use to live. Let me see your hands. How many people would be willing to give up central air, central heating, hot water (clean water), stereos, television, telephony, siding on houses, inexpensive clothing (got to consider the amount of arable land that would have to be devoted to cotton or hemp growth is we get rid of the synthetics), clean cooking equipment (gas or electric stoves replaced by wood burners or coal burners? Hmm, seems there are problems with that, too), and, frankly, the ability to go where we want when we want and–the biggy–associate with the circle of friends of our choosing no matter where they live?
None of this is undoable, but I think it ought to be considered that when we talk about all the things we “ought” to do to help the environment, we don’t often have a grasp of what kind of personal sacrifice might be involved.
The solution we’re looking for–and why it’s taking so damn long to come up with–is that we need to find a replacement for fossil fuels that will not significantly diminish the life we now have. I’m sorry, but people just aren’t going to give up having the life they currently like willingly.
Now, rather than come across as purely a naysayer, let me point out that there are lots of ways to reduce consumption without impairing the way we live. Just to name one, we need to revisit this absurd fetish we have with Packaging. Why should everything we buy have to come in its own specially made blister pack or paper box? It’s ridiculous. Some things, sure, but most things? How much landfill is made up of just BOXES and BAGS?
But the major issue is–people need to understand both what we might have to give up and what they’re asking other people to give up in this issue. Take my freedom of movement away, visa vis my car, and I’m stuck associating with people I’ve never cared to associate with before. We talk about the decline of the neighborhood, that people don’t know their neighbors anymore. Well, frankly, if it had been that great, we would still be doing it. My friends do not live within four blocks of me. And there are reasons I don’t care to be buddies with the guy down the block. My mobility allows me to live peacefully with the people around me because we never have to get into each other’s hair to the extent of finding out we don’t like each other.
As facetious as that sounds, it is something we might have to give up. And it’s not a small thing.
None of it is.
So it’s going to take a while to find the answers. In the meantime, I’m not going to ask anyone to give up anything. Because they could turn around and ask me to give up something.
That’s no way to correct any problem, by starting off creating resentment.
Just ranting and rambling here…
Print this post [1]
[2]