What Would You Keep?
07/11/2008
By "Tern" Alexa Schirtzinger--Food metaphor: I adore ice cream. If I could eat it all day without getting indigestion or outgrowing my jeans, I probably would. But in college, morbidly afraid of the "Freshman 15,"
I knew I couldn't eat ice cream every night after dinner. I did, however, discover nonfat frozen yogurt, which I could eat with abandon.
Of course, it probably would've made more sense just to be reasonable and not eat creamy desserts every night. But I liked them!
Which brings me to a whole island of people kind of like me, as told by Elizabeth Kolbert, one of my favorite writers (she raised bees!), in last week's New Yorker. The story, titled "The Island in the Wind," is about Samsø, a Danish island whose residents, after realizing that importing oil to burn for power wasn't totally ideal, almost completely transitioned to renewable energy sources.
It wasn't an act of environmental piousness, though; in fact, it was hard to get people motivated, Kolbert reports, and even then they considered themselves less as eco-pioneers than as normal folk. But the strangest thing, to me, was that Samsø's energy conversion may not have any great-minded environmental reform aspects at all--because despite getting it from wind or biomass, people there are using the exact same amount of power as they always have. Residents who installed better insulation in their homes, Kolbert reports, would also heat more rooms. "People are acting--what do you call it?--irresponsibly. They behave like monkeys," Samsø resident and renewable energy guru Søren Hermansen tells Kolbert.
I congratulate the Samsingers (as they call themselves), because what they've done--gone from a net energy user to producer, and in much cleaner ways--is momentous. Still, it makes me wonder...Are Samsingers--and the rest of us, too, lest I sound sanctimonious--really just a bunch of lazy monkeys? Are we switching to frozen yogurt, for whatever reasons, instead of just exercising a little self-control? Or is the beauty of renewable energy the fact that it allows us to keep living the way we like to--that we can be comfortable and responsible at once?
I happen to believe that the way Americans live now is unsustainable. I mean, really--disposable cameras; bottled water; to each his own...Hummer? Don't get me started. We can't do this forever--not all of us, anyway--consuming and disposing at will. That eventually we'll have to cut back is probably a good thing. But when we do, what aspects of our lives will we change--and by choice or by necessity?
I know that no one reads this blog besides my mother, my father, my dearest friends (thanks!), and maybe our president's Wonderful Warrantless Wiretapping Team. But I'd like to hear from you: What aspects of our lives do you think we'll actually end up changing? Will it be because we want to, or because we have to?
And if there were one thing you wouldn't change about the way you live now, what would it be? Best reply gets to ask me anything you want--truth or dare, enviro-style--and I'll blog about it next week. Enjoy the weekend!
Comments
What bothers me about the
What bothers me about the AGW debate (not here so much, but elsewhere) is the either/or dichotomy presented.
James Hansen of NASA, whose own data puts the hottest year [in the lower 48 states, not globally--A.S.]on record as 1934 [due to an error in his calculations. At the same time, some climate data has allegedly been suppressed by NASA higher-ups.--A.S.]...calls for AGW deniers ["CEOs of fossil energy companies," in Hansen's words.--A.S.] to be tried...for "high crimes against humanity". This is not science but theocracy...
Freedom. What about those people who can't ride bicycles to work? I live too far away to do that. What about families with 4 kids all of whom play sports...are they to be scourged because an SUV is the best way to accomplish that mission? I seem to recall doing "dawn patrol" for someone's cross country team long ago.
What about those people who don't find your lifestyle choices attractive? The James Hansens would string them up, prevent them from their choices...via a cap-and-trade system that inflates the cost of gasoline, for example.
Enacting a law that dictates what kind of light you will have in your house is not encouraging freedom, but taking it away.... If individual rights are to be meaningful, then people have to be allowed to make decisions others don't like without unreasonable interference. Theft and murder are not activities a libertarian would sanction, so don't use that as an example of libertarianism gone too far. My choice of light bulbs is government gone too far.
Acquiring more living space than the minimum necessary (and how would you determine that? 50 cubic feet per person? 200? How much does Al Gore have?) is a personal right if you are within your means to support it and it happens legally.
As I understand the numbers, all human activity produces about 3-4% of annual CO2 emissions. Said another way, if we turn off all the lights, shut down all the power plants and drink kool-aid in unison...every one of us grotty people and lazy monkeys...97% of current CO2 emissions will continue.
And we flatter ourselves that WE are going to save the world by riding bikes and using the "right" light bulb?
I think success will elude us.
Thank you for your corrections
Thanks for correcting my comments about James Hansen and NASA. I will stand by my judgement that Hansen's comment about charging anyone with "high crimes against humanity" is that of an ideologue...
No disagreement that we should not be good stewards in our own ways of the environment. I dispose of my used engine oil at a recycler, and do other things as a matter of choice, not because of orders from the local gauleiter.
As to all of us being slightly hypocritical, I join you in that.
from he to whom much has been given, much is expected
Mr. Schell:
That all people should be entitled to civil liberties is the basis of this country. However, is it not up to those people to also exercise prudence and foresight, and to collaborate--in some cases through representative government--in their own interest? An abandonment of the responsibility of caring for our ecosystem (and, hence, also for our own and our great-grandchildren's general welfare) in the interest of personal preference seems, to me, unjustifiable.
I guess that's where the debate lies. Are "people" (myself included) to be trusted with the environment? And, as you point out, can we really do anything about it, anyway? Enough of the greenhouse gases and warming/cooling/whatever you want to call it are tied up in feedback loops that make climate change to some extent irrevocable, even if we change our lives right now.
I respect your devotion to personal freedoms, but I don't believe such freedoms should entitle us to sit back and watch thousands of species go extinct because buying bottled water is easier than refilling a cup. But changing our lifestyles can happen in a multitude of ways, and it doesn't have to come from strict governmental regulation. Lest we forget, planting your own garden and riding a bike can actually be fun.
Note: For a nice tongue-in-cheek piece on Al Gore's mansion, see the Christian Science Monitor's green blog.
i would keep writing desks
I mean, I like stuff made of wood. And I know that means I must be a proponent of cutting down trees! Although, I must say, if we just got rid of concrete and had everything be made of wood, there would ultimately be more room and a less destroyed earth to plant more trees. Maybe?
Vote for change! (Cliché, I know)
Perhaps I agree with Mr. Schell, though in less of a philosophical manner... Anyway, I think it's more likely that the first changes won't be our choices; they will be chosen for us. As far as I've seen, many Americans have responded to the challenges of pollution, waste, and energy/environment issues not by altering their own lifestyle, but demanding governments and corporations confront these issues for them. Obviously, the most efficacious method of addressing these problems is simply for citizens to make different choices for themselves. But, so far, they have been unwilling to discard the major motivation behind consumerism - a preference for the best product at the lowest price. When will this change? Probably never.
So, can this whole discussion almost be boiled down to cost? I think so, but note that cost does not always influence consumers’ decisions as we predict it will. Habitat Steward optimistically observes that a rise in gas prices has changed the way people think about energy. Yes, hybrids cars are selling, and less people are buying pickups to make a sort of fashion statement, but a recent poll suggests that Americans actually care less about conservation and more about increasing fossil fuel production and supply. If the bottom line is cost, when will people decide that they are going to purchase the more expensive, 100% compostable corn-plastic cups instead of the cheap regular kind? I don’t think that will ever happen on a grand scale – though not because “Madison Avenue” has everybody snowed, as Mary Gulledge suggests, but because it’s hard to justify financial hardship – especially with a slowing economy – for something like long term environmental health. Going organic doesn’t make your mortgage.
But, most people seem to want change, even if it’s in their “complain loudly from the sidelines” sort of way, so governments and corporations will probably respond in an uneven, controversial, inefficient, and probably unproductive manner (e.g. debating price controls, increasing massive subsidies on certain items, taxing the tobacco juice out of other products, etc.). Corporations will probably take some steps to go green in order improve their image and marketability. I expect those to be the first steps, are they enough to solve the problems or just make people feel better about their lifestyle? I guess I sort of hope I’m wrong – otherwise nature could be in for a long term beating, while citizens delegate the responsibility of choice to governments and corporations. That’s bad for our environment and our political system.
Oh, and the one thing I wouldn't change? Thankfully, my slight air of superiority that enables me to make broad generalizations about people, their motives, and what that means for society, is zero emissions - so I don't have to change it!
just a rich-country luxury
Mr. Pants (your reputation precedes you):
An excellent point--several, actually. I agree that it's often discouraging to hear us all "carping" (of which I've been accused) without taking as much action as we should while waiting for our government to step in and solve things.
As far as the Pew poll you mentioned, it's true that in June more Americans supported "Expand[ing] exploration, mining/drilling, [and]construction of new power plants" than did in February of this year, and that fewer supported energy conservation and regulation. This, I contend, is not unreasonable: We'd rather have more energy than less, right? Is it, as Schell alludes, human nature to hedge our bets and make ourselves as comfortable as possible?
All of you who have said we won't really conserve until we have to are probably correct. But one upside to the poll is that, if managed correctly, "expanding exploration" could mean exploring wind farms, biomass systems, or other renewable energy options. Of course, conservation's crucial, too--but that might not be attractive until it's a necessity, as has been the case with SUVs and gas prices. (Maybe it's a good thing that renewable energy isn't cheap yet.)
On to your other main point, which I've put in bold type above: At the end of the day, is environmentalism just a luxury of the rich and comfortable? Its implications, of course, are not--environmental degradation often affects developing countries more than the industrialized ones that "outsource" their pollution--but the actual conservation efforts are usually relegated to those who have the time and money to worry about something bigger than putting food on the table. This question plagued me throughout my Peace Corps service: Was my effort to get people to think about organic farming, conservation, and even their own health just a waste of their time? The answer, in my next posting.
(Also, love your ending. May we all recognize that we're a tiny bit hypocritical. I am, anyway.)
"...About the Declaration
"...About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter.
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people..."
Calvin Coolidge, on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
A government with other principles at its center, whether the worship of Gaia, or Marx, or anyone, that sees people as subordinate to that worship, does not reflect the Declaration or Bill of Rights.
What would I change?
Hi Tern, just today I was telling my friend we must change the way we Americans do things. We must change the way we live and do business to a more sustainable way.
I agree that Americans live in a unsustainable way and will continue to do so until they have to change because of monetary reasons. Look how the price of gas has made people change the way they drive and the cars they drive.
I wouldn't change the way I try to live my life so I make as little an impact on the earth as possible.
Thanks for writing the blog. I will look for others.
Thanks, Steward! It's good
Thanks, Steward! It's good to hear that not only are you pursuing sustainability--but that you also believe in it! I congratulate you. (And wish I were better!)
--A.S.
What I would keep...
Let us start with a basic concept…what does “unsustainable” mean? A popular word thrown around today, but with a little examination, I think there is nothing in this life which is sustainable. Four out of four of us will die sometime.[...]
Another basic concept seems to be that being “green” is doing less, a lower quality of life, lower life expectancy, less personal freedom of choice, movement or abode.
Your example of the people heating more rooms is their houses, how can that not be a good thing in that cold a climate? Should we be shivering the dark if we don’t have to?
Nearly every advance in science has come from a desire to make life more comfortable in some way or another. So much good (the arts, for example) is possible when people have a margin in life above subsistence, and impossible without that margin. A mindset finding virtue with shivering in the dark may have profoundly negative consequences on future generations.
The heartbeat I have today comes because I had medicine, good food...many advantages based on energy production and consumption. It is highly unlikely I would be alive today without them, as an asthmatic....
I recall some observers of the PT Cruiser, long ago, saying such an ugly vehicle should be banned. I don’t agree, though I find it ugly (and the Hummer, too). The fact someone had the freedom to create it, someone else the freedom to buy it, is something to celebrate. [...]
So, what will I never give up to maintain Gaia? Not the thoughts behind the Bill of Rights. I will cling to some books and objects as long as I have breath.... Nor the love of and for some people, and the happy memories made possible thanks to fossil fuels.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” —C.S. Lewis
on sustainability
Harry,
Thanks for your comments, and for raising a couple of very important points.
First, sustainability is, indeed, a tricky term. Though commonly used in an environmental context, you're right to point out that, at its very basis, life itself is unsustainable.
Quality of life, however, is your other point--and that's where we differ. I agree with Mary (4th comment) that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and the ensuing effects--taking life a little slower by riding bikes, re-finding the time to greet our neighbors from the garden, reconnecting with the natural course of the moon and the seasons by growing our own food--will actually improve our quality of life.
I don't believe the Samsingers were "shivering in the cold" before they started using wind power. But by the same token, I don't believe that wind power necessarily entitles them to bigger houses that use more energy. Here's another of your points: That if we respect the Constitution (or Denmark's equivalent, in this particular example), it's not up to me to say whether they should have big, inefficient houses or small, conservationist ones, because the beauty of life is freedom. But such libertarianism goes too far. We are not allowed to steal just because we want something. In fact, our cars have to pass inspection as is! Why not raise the bar? I don't think emissions controls will severely impinge on my freedom. (Not that they'll happen if the EPA doesn't get some backbone; more on that tomorrow.)
Then, perhaps the changes Mary suggests will happen all on their own, since oil's too expensive anyway. Who knows?
In sum: Freedom, yes. Medicine, yes. Quality of life--yes! And that, for me, means a life that is slower, gentler, and allows for the preservation of wild places like the ANWR.
what we'll change
...in the future I think more people will have a closer connection to the earth/nature. What I mean by this is more backyard vegetable gardens (remember your grandmother talking proudly about her wartime "victory garden"), more home-made rain water cachement systems, more native shrubs and grasses used in landscaping so homeowners and renters can easliy maintain their own yards.
These changes will come about through necessity, but once adopted they will be enthusiastically embraced as people gain the deep satisfaction that comes from working with and being in sync with nature's rhythms. ...Madison Avenue et al has led us to believe that if we only get THIS car, THIS nutritional supplement, THIS plastic surgery, then we will indeed have deeply satisfying lives. Experiencing nature and reflecting on that experience will bring a deeper satisfaction than any material object can provide. Yes, I'm an eternal optimist, but I think we'll become a better society through necessity.
And the one thing that I wouldn't change...electronic communication that allows me to stay connected with family and friends living all over the world!