My wife is recovering from surgery on her shoulder, which gives us plenty of time to watch movies. Last night it was “Food, Inc.” – hardly a “feel-good flick,” but incredibly compelling.
Guess what? The food industry is really no more kind and gentle on its customers than the energy industry. Surprise!
Recently, I wrote a few pieces around the concept, “The New Living Large Is Living Small.” The concept suggests that society will experience significant upheaval when it becomes “cool” to be “green.” I don’t want to over-aggrandize the importance of my idea here, but I wonder if a modest “movement” couldn’t take place around this notion.
Adult Americans consume an average of about 2500 calories endosomatically (into the body) every day, but we use about 230,000 (almost 100 times that much) with all the other stuff we have around to add convenience to our lives: big cars, huge houses with perfect indoor temperatures, etc.
A few basic points: (more…)
Reader and cool guy Brian McGowan writes in:
I once read something that I think applies here. In the old days before cars, people rode horses for transportation. 1 horse for 1 person. What can we take away from this? It only takes 1 horsepower to haul your butt around. The rest of the horsepower is to haul your ego around.
I reply:
Ha! I’m not sure that’s the exact reason we drive cars, but it’s certainly a disgracefully large part. And dig this: we (adult Americans) take in 2500 calories per day endosomatically (into the body) but we use 230,000 calories daily (almost 100 times that much energy) in our cars, HVAC, electronics, etc. This IS, at its core, unsustainable. Something’s about to change here. Thanks for being tuned in.
I’ve finally gotten around to reading Jeremy Rifkin’s fabulous The Third Industrial Revolution, which includes the following:
In 1981, The Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, a legislative service organization made up of more than one hundred congressmen and senators, invited me to present two informal, off-the-record lectures for congress on the thermodynamic consequences of industrially induced CO2 emissions.
I’m not sure how to react to the idea that our leaders have known about the issue since 1981, and now, 31 years later, as the evidence for all this has steadily mounted, are running for president on the platform of cutting regulations and denying the existence of global climate change.
It’s true that we live in a democracy of sorts, that our leaders do what they’re commanded by voters, and that many voters have been swayed by the propaganda of the oil and coal companies in this arena. But shouldn’t leaders lead, rather than follow?
I hate to start off the new year with a message of anger, but I can’t think of another response.
132 years ago today, Thomas Edison first demonstrated his incandescent lightbulb and told spectators: “We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles.”
Not a bad prediction, when you think about it. Few people grouse about the price of electricity, which is one of the main reasons that the migration to renewables is so difficult; in many ways, we’re trying to fix something that at first blush doesn’t appear to be really broken. It’s only in the very recent past that we began to realize that our system of delivering energy to a world population had huge hidden costs.
As we enter the new year, let’s all pledge to heighten the awareness of those costs, and do everything we can to push the planet in the direction of clean energy sources.
Lots of folks are wondering what the future of transportation looks like. While none of us knows for sure, we can have some level of certainty as to what it does not look like: a 4000 pound hunk of steel, transporting one 150 pound person, and using 20 times more energy than necessary in the process.
Certainly, re-inventing the way we live and move about will be important to our survival as a species. Great ideas include mixed-use development, greater reliance on mass transit, and car-sharing. But to the degree to which we stay within the passenger vehicle paradigm, it’s hard not to be intrigued with concepts for extremely light, small, affordable, battery electric vehicles, like the EMCycle that I’ve been promoting.
Here’s a related concept from San Francisco-based “LIT Motors” that my friend and colleague Bill Moore of EV World came across.
I often consider how most of the content here is essentially bad news: climate change, ocean acidification, empowering terrorists, oil companies’ propaganda, corporatocracy, governmental corruption, and public ignorance and apathy. But here’s some good news: Traffic at 2GreenEnergy in 2011 was up over 51% from 2010. Not too bad! Thanks to all who contributed!
In response to my piece suggesting that “the new living large is living small,” Erik writes:
I agree that many people will eventually see consumerism as utter foolishness. I also have to agree with some commentators here that this will most likely happen when people are with their backs up against the wall. … It’s our internalized beliefs about what makes us happy that must change. Lust for material growth without limits is no less than a surrogate for our deeper human needs for psychological and spiritual growth.
Wow, that’s really well written. I completely agree. It’s a shame more of us can’t see past the thin veil of materialism and begin to see our lives in grander terms. But this is precisely the aim of modern consumer marketing: to convince us that we’re inadequate as people if we don’t get that big car, big house, or latest gadget; in fact, we’re bombarded with these messages at every turn. Thus the utter brilliance of The Story of Stuff.
Yet I’m wondering if I don’t see a recent change in consumer tastes. There are many reasons that I don’t drive a 5800-pound Cadillac Escalade or 6600-pound Hummer, or some equally ridiculous car, but one of them is that I don’t want to be on the receiving end of the contemptuous glares of a growing number of people communicating, “We all need to share this planet. You obviously didn’t get the memo on this, did you?”
For those interested in tracking the progress I’m making in writing my third book, here is the title: Renewable Energy – Following the Money.
The project is based on the notion that the migration from fossil fuels will happen precisely when it becomes profitable. Therefore, understanding the trajectory by which renewables gradually displace their dirty counterparts means wrapping our wits around each of the main economic components: subsidies and incentives, taxes and disincentives, lobbying and campaign finance reform, improving efficiencies, cost reduction associated with to scale and technological breakthroughs, addressing demand with conservation and efficiency, and the development of ancillary solutions like energy storage, smart-grid, electric transportation, etc. (more…)
In response to my piece on “living small,” frequent commenter Arlene writes:
Well said, Craig. It is unfortunate (for me) that I don’t believe humans will do the “right thing” until their backs are up against it.
I totally understand. I think most people’s behavior is shaped by their surroundings and the messages they receive from the world around them. Unfortunately, the media surrounds us with suggestions that people can’t be trusted, and that even honest people, if they’re smart, look out for themselves.
Like a mouse attacking a wolverine, I try to issue consistent messages of compassion. Even when I’m slamming someone or something, I try to advocate for what’s right, and point people in that direction. I realize it’s just a tiny contribution to the totality of kindness in the world, but I suppose it’s at least something.
And speaking of kindness, I hope you’ll check this out; this is exactly what I’m talking about. The more people are exposed to stuff like this, the better off each and every one of us are.
