gotta get this down

I drive a Honda Civic that gets 30/35 mpg, I usually take the train to work, I ride my bike and walk to destinations when it’s “reasonable to me”, I try not to use very much electricity (and Maria will tell you that I love to get rid of phantom loads), I try to keep the apartment really cold during the winter, and I’ve given up the “adolescent” long hot shower. You could honestly say that all of that is a sorry attempt at trying to do my part, but really, I am trying - but I know I could do more.

My question: am I being responsible?

If I really want to save the earth from becoming uninhabitable, and save future generations from the mess we’ve made, should I really be conserving?

I’ve read a lot about the energy crisis, global warming, renewable energy, and responsible living. I’ve also learned a bit about resource/species depletion. I’ve come to realize that we as humans are pretty dumb. We managed to kill off all of the estimated 5 billion passenger pigeons in America (and on earth) between 1800 and 1914; we only stopped killing them because there were no more to kill. Between 1800 and 1885 we killed all but about 50 of the 50 to 65 million bison in America. We have a very solid history of depleting our resources, and I’m fairly convinced that reasoning nor consequences deter us from doing so. Why would it be any different for oil?

It has been different, but barely. We are starting to pass restrictive laws (led by the great state of CA), and we do have meager tax and rebate incentives on renewable energy systems/hybrid cars/efficient building products/appliances. A select few in this country (I am only talking about America here) have even changed how they live their lives for the sake of energy conservation/global warming/air quality/national stability. Honestly though, have we really done anything? Given our potential, I would say no, we haven’t.

I own a National Geographic magazine that doesn’t have the yellow border around the front cover; the cover doesn’t have the titles of a few articles of interest. The cover is a picture of an oil refinery with gases spewing out from it all over the place. These words are on the cover:

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

A special report in the public interest

ENERGY

Facing up to the problem, getting down to solutions

Articles inside the issue include: Our Energy Predicament, America’s Auto Mania, Can we live better on less?, Fewer imports;more conservation;innovative new sources, Harnessing the Wind, Electricity from the Sun, Wrestling Oil from Reluctant Rock, New Energy Frontier.

The issue begins with a note from the president of National Geographic; it ends as such: “A chief problem facing the new administration in Wahsington is devising an energy policy that encourages American economic growth while coming to grips with the international economic balances that are being so radically altered by the pressures of energy cost and social unrest.”

The date of this issue: February 1981.

Incredibly sad; none of us would be surprised to see this same issue today, with mostly the same articles and outlook as this 25-year-old issue.

If that wasn’t discouraging enough, a quote from Time Magazine, January 13, 1992

“If wind power does not fulfill its promise as a major energy source by the end of the century, it will not be a failure of technology. It will be a failure of vision on the part of society to make the necessary commitment.”

We have the knowledge; we have the technology; we have the capacity. We don’t act. Why? Because we don’t need to. There have yet to be any major consequences. Am I naive in believing that we will not cease to almost solely use oil/coal until we fully deplete our supply of oil/coal?

Instead of waiting another 1, 2, 3, or 4 decades for the depletion of oil (20 decades for coal), instead of fighting the resistance to change, instead of waiting for our population to understand, instead of waiting for automakers and power companies to give up on their number one goal (maximum profits), should we instead act in a way as to make it impossible not to change?

Should we not all drive Hummer H3’s to our job that is 1.5 hours away, keep our large homes at 80 deg. F during the winter, and keep all of our incandescent light bulbs on 24 hours a day? Should we not deplete our resouce as quickly as possible, so that we can create some actual change?

I know that the downside to this is that we may “overshock” our life-sustaining troposphere. But the CO2 we produce today stays up there for over 50 years anyway. What difference does it make if we burn up all of our oil in 10 years or in 40 years?

 

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 29th, 2006 at 11:59 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.