Selfish green

Now that Earth Day is over and we're done patting ourselves on the back for all the little things we're doing which we believe actually make a difference, I figure a little perspective is in order.

When we "go green", are we really doing the best thing for the planet? Sure, if everyone switched to flourescents (like WE have, harumph), we could reduce overall consumption considerably - but beyond that, are we really putting our "green" dollars to effective use, or are we just making ourselves look good?

Case in point:
Let's say I have an average house and in my particular region I use an average amount of fossil fuel for heating annually. Is it better for the environment for me to put a few thousand dollars into insulation and other heating-related projects which will reduce my fossil fuel usage, or is it better for the environment overall if those few thousand dollars go into an older, below-average home which has much higher heating costs and would see a much greater reduction in CO2 emissions? What if my house is above-average already, in which case the reductions I would achieve would be relatively small?

Another example (and this has been marginally discussed on other threads):
Is it better for me to spend $30,000 for a roof-mounted PV array, or to invest that same amount in large-scale solar/wind projects which would provide much greater output per $ spent?

Mull those over for a while, and you'll probably think of some other examples. And before you say "well, if everyone did all the things I'm doing", you should first make a list of all the things you're ACTUALLY doing and measure how much they actually help. Then remember that most people don't have a lot of capital to work with (and can't borrow it either), and ask yourself, bang-for-buck, which is the better course for the environment overall?


Then there's this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/236722
Which states very convincingly that the only substantive environmental changes in the past 50 years were all the result of legislation. Acid rain, ozone hole, toxic rivers - these were NOT fixed by individuals choosing not to use CFC's or refusing to use dirty coal plants for electricity. They were fixed by LAW.

Let that sink in for a minute. Then ask yourself whether you should spend money spray-foaming your attic to take it from R-50 to R-60 or replacing your 85% efficiency furnace with a 92% one so that you have something to talk about at dinner parties, or if you should be investing that money in large-scale clean electricity generation projects, or making donations to environmental groups who lobby for real, substantive legislative action.

Think about it. Are you green to the core, or just on the outside layer you show to the world?

 

Or as Thomas Friedman says it, "It's not a (green) revolution until someone gets hurt".

Are you ready to hurt?

 

That's a fallacy, and a convenient excuse to sit on one's nice person... How many "viable" plans do you know of? And if they are truly viable, why aren't they already being done? And what makes you think the no-cost options will be enough by themselves?

It WILL hurt, compared to the devastating but very inexpensive way we do things today. It likely won't hurt as much as the doom-sayers are predicting (fixing acid rain ended up being 1/4th the projected cost and didn't exactly "destroy the economy"), but it won't be free.

That's why I think it's important to look at where we put our "green dollars", and spend them wisely. If we blow them all on things that are sexy/interesting (like PV and electric bikes) instead of the things that are boring but far more cost-effective (like insulation/caulking and large-scale renewable power), we're wasting our money.

We also need to look at who gets hurt if we DON'T do anything (or don't do enough, either by blowing our money on things which are less cost-effective, or only doing the no-cost things). Future generations, the poor, coastal communities - they will be hit very hard indeed.

Then we need to decide if we should take some pain ourselves, now, by putting our money where our mouths are and putting it where it does the most good, rather than leaving the entire burden on those other groups. If we only spend on ourselves, it won't be nearly as effective.

But since a lot of people will prefer to avoid personal pain in the short run and keep a few bucks in their own pocket today rather than do something which would help everyone down the road, legislation may end up being the only "viable" solution.

 

Short answer: yes. By not applying the same standards to imported goods (be it environmental or labor regulations), we're giving those companies a "blank check" to pollute elsewhere. And by purchasing those goods, we are saying it's OK.

But as we have seen from the big cloud over China which sometimes has impacts all the way across the Pacific ocean in California, "nimby" doesn't apply - the entire world is everyone's backyard.

Most people will say that they're just wasting their money by buying "cleaner" goods, because so many people buy the cheaper stuff anyway. And that's why legislation works better than voluntary compliance or individual choice. Slavery wasn't ended by voluntary compliance...

 

You can't get something for nothing - life is choices.

But another way of looking at that particular situation is, would that money be better spent on efficiency improvements instead, which wouldn't require damming a river?

This is what I mean by spending green dollars wisely. I would rather have hydro than coal, but those aren't the only options. And just because we're building different power sources doesn't mean we can think them through a little.

 

Yes, and another way of looking at this is:

Which is better for the environment: 1 million Priuses, or higher CAFE standards for all vehicles? I think that clarifies the whole self-improvement vs legislation context.

Look at it this way: the environment is like the Titanic, heading into iceberg territory. Your choices are three:
1) keep dancing in the ballroom, either believing the ship is "unsinkable" or because you've given up.
2) build your own private lifeboat.
3) try to persuade the captain to turn slow down and turn south.

Don't tell yourself you're "doing your part" simply by donning a life jacket and encouraging others to do the same...

 

If you think buying a Prius had any effect on the Big 3, you're sadly mistaken. They saw $150/barrel oil and a Democratic majority in congress, and didn't have to be geniuses to see that CAFE standards would change sooner rather than later. The Volt's "230mpg" is just a convenient way to distort the curve so that they will be allowed to sell more of their big-profit vehicles: SUV's.

Buying a Prius clearly falls into the "building your own private lifeboat" category - it benefits you (and me) specifically, more than it benefits the environment as a whole. The $3000 surcharge we paid vs a comparable non-hybrid definitely would have been better spent in other ways. Think about it: 100,000 Priuses x $3000 = $300 million. That's a lot of influence in Washington, and a lot of advertising dollars to use getting a message across.

Slavery didn't end because abolishonists "planted seeds" or "sent a message" by personally boycotting southern cotton - they made the issue visible and got their message out, and persuaded people to vote against pro-slavery candidates. Civil rights was the same thing - it didn't end because african-americans boycotted whites-only businesses, they marched on Washington and got vocal.

Voting your dollars really isn't nearly as effective as using your dollars to affect votes. Just ask the Big 3.

 

True enough - but everyone else is still paddling, and we're all in the same canoe...

What I'm saying is that we need to change "being green" from something a few of us do individually (with negligable effect overall), into doing things that will affect everyone and have real-world impact. In short, we need to look beyond ourselves and find ways to influence the big picture - to use our "green dollars" in more effective ways than simply benefitting ourselves directly. And that by doing so, we will get far more bang for the buck from our money.

 

It would have - because of oil price spikes and new CAFE standards, not because of the "pioneers" who think they are changing attitudes by wearing eco-consciousness like designer clothing. That kind of passive approach is why gay marriage advocates have had so many setbacks recently - they were doing far better 30 years ago when they were willing to take a stand and get in everyone's face.

You may hate the tea partiers and think they are totally wrong about most things (they are), but they definitely have the process right - and are having impacts far beyond their numbers.

So ask yourself, why do people with such "controversial" (to put it nicely) ideas have such a disproportionate impact, when those of us who know the environment is going to hell in a handbasket (a statement most people agree with) have almost no impact at all?

I think it's because we spend our efforts purchasing "green" items to display how we're "doing our part", rather than putting our money and our mouths where they could have much larger and broader impacts. We would rather show off the gadgets we bought which allow us to escape the system, rather than try to fix the system itself.