We have met the enemy and he is us
As I mentioned in a previous posting, last week, I attended the “Climate Change: 1,000 Solutions” workshop at the BuildingEnergy 07 Conference.
I have posted all of my raw notes online, but several people have asked for a higher level synthesis of the information coming out of the conference including my thoughts and reactions. This will be one of several entries presenting highlights from the conference.
The more that I think about the conference, the more I am reminded of the quote from the cartoon Pogo in which he said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” (Of course a riff on the historical quote, “We have met the enemy, and they are ours.”)
This came out of two of the most positive presentations of the day: the presentation by Katherine McGinty the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection in Pennsylvania and the presentation by Mark Buckley, Vice President of Environmental Affairs for Staples.
The positive part of both of these presentation is how far both of these organizations have already gone to make a difference. It was really just awe inspiring sitting back and listening to all of the practices that each of them have already put in place.
They guy from Staples talked about how they have conveyor belts in their distribution centers that are broken into sections with each section controlled by a separate motor. When there is nothing on a particular section of the conveyor belt, the motors on that section automatically shut down.
He talked about how Staples is installing solar panels on many of their stores, building wind turbines in others, and is looking at installing micro-turbines on the awnings of their stores to capture wind energy.
He talked about how Staples is converting their delivery trucks over to hybrid vehicles.
Mrs. McGinty talked about how Pennsylvania has banned SUVs from the state fleet, is replacing 25% of the state’s fleet with hybrid vehicles, and have a renewable portfolio standard calling for 18% of the state’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2020.
While it was amazing to see how far along the curve both of these organizations are,
what was even more stunning about both of these presentations was why they have done what they have done.
Is it because they are green to the core? Is it because of global warming or health issues? Is it because they want to save the planet?
No, no, and no.
It is because of money and jobs.
Both of these speakers talked about how every one of these things helps them cost costs, save money, and protect themselves against the risk of increasing energy prices.
Put another way, both of these folks are making fiscally responsible decisions that happen to be environmentally friendly.
Neither of these presenters really looked at these actions as “green” from the environmentalism perspective; they looked at them as “green” from the economic perspective.
These two presenters also really demonstrated the power of the pocketbook; when they realized how much money could be saved by improving their energy efficiencies, they were able to enact real changes.
So, how did I walk out of sessions like this and come away thinking that “we are the enemy”?
I was just struck by the gap between the practices these organizations have put into place and the practices used by the average citizen. While we are trying to advocate to get individuals to replace a handful of lightbulbs in their house, smart businesses are much further down the path of really understanding the economic benefits of energy efficiency.
It seems to me that individuals get caught up in the politics of left vs. right and liberal vs. conservative and caught up debating whether global warming really exists, and, because of all of this, never really get around to making pragmatic, financially intelligent changes at home.
It really made me think that rather than spending our time trying to lobby businesses to go green, we really need to take a look in the mirror and focus on getting individuals to focus on energy efficiency; in many cases, smart companies are going to follow their noses and take them where the money leads them.
on March 20th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
RE: we really need to take a look in the mirror
Eric, I couldn’t agree more, but what I’m finding is that every morning I look at myself in the mirror, and feel like I’m not doing enough, but don’t really know what to do next. I’ve done many or all of the standards, but now I want to take the next step. I want to be as green as I can with the green I have to work with. I think there are a lot people wondering this. Well, except for those driving SUVs who are wondering when this Global Warming scare will be over with…
on March 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
It really made me think that rather than spending our time trying to lobby businesses to go green, we really need to take a look in the mirror and focus on getting individuals to focus on energy efficiency; in many cases, smart companies are going to follow their noses and take them where the money leads them.
No no no no. No! Non! Nyet! Ie! Sacre bleu, non!
I mean, fine if you want to change your lifestyle and make yourself green. I’m all for it! But as a policy prescription, I don’t think that it does much.
This problem isn’t one that can be solved by individuals making different choices. Economic and political structures makes it perfectly rational for people to make what otherwise are bad choices. Many of the costs associated with SUVs are turned into externalities, thus owning an SUV is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do. You’re not going to get a lot of people to change their behavior this way. Some people, like Dean, see it as a badge of honor that they are green. Others see it as a badge of honor that they are not — that they in fact actively oppose durn tree-huggers. Look at all the resentment that Gore has generated, jeez. It’s nice if people want to change their lifestyle — go Dean! — but to really effect change you have to change the structures, making, for example, the social costs associated with SUV use something paid for by the vehicles’s owners.
Also, this look-in-the-mirror prescription ends up being very class-biased. Middle class people with abundant resources at their disposal can afford to shop at Whole Food or Trader Joe’s. They can afford to pay for Fair-Trade coffee. But if you’re supporting a family of four on 40,000 a year, you’re eating at McDonald’s. You’re not looking at Priuses.
And thus, by focusing on individual changes, all you succeed in doing is creating another lifestyle, and perhaps making a few individuals feel good about themselves (and sanctimonious), but not changing the underlying dynamic.
on March 21st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I agree with Josh, but for a different reason — efficiency. If the CEO of one company to put their office’s lights on a motion-detecting switch, a lot more energy is saved than if I convinced a single home owner to turn off their lights. If I can convince 270 people who happen to be members of Congress that SUVs should be covered under CAFE standards, I can achieve greater gains than I would have gotten by getting 270 ordinary people to trade those SUVs in for Priuses.
While I think it’s a noble goal to get individuals to do everything they can to minimize their energy use, don’t lose sight of the huge gains you get when you effect change at higher levels.
on March 21st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Gah!
“If the CEO of one company to put their office’s lights on a motion-detecting switch…” should have read “If you convince the CEO of one company to put their office’s lights on a motion-detecting switch…”
on March 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 am
I’m sure you’ve seen it elsewhere, but here’s Gore’s legislative agenda. For reasons Vicki enumerated elsewhere, I’m not a big fan of pt. 8 (banning incandescent bulbs), but I like pt. 3 (helping low income people transition) especially, and it’s something that no amount of individual action would accomplish.
on March 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 am
also, pt. 2 (replace payroll taxes with carbon taxes) is boneheaded. People will always work, and pay — provided CEOs don’t vacuum up all of the money made by increasing productivity — will increase over time, meaning tax intake will increase, allowing government to function. If Gore’s plan works, carbon use will decrease, and thus tax revenues will decrease over time.
on March 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I agree that helping low income people transition is crucial, but the “Connie Mae” idea seems odd. Why not cover this under existing financial structures?
I’m also a bit wary of the “Electranet” (pt. 6) idea. It seems whenever I hear someone talking about defraying the costs of installing solar panels, they assume that you will be able to sell back the extra electricity at the current market rate. But, if enough people do this, you change the balance of supply vs. demand, and should see electricity prices drop. That drop in revenue doesn’t seem to be factored into the equation.
Feeding more clean energy into the electrical grid is a good idea, and it may make sense to have individuals contribute, but I would like to see the economics researched more before we commit to things.
on March 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Ok, Eric, Gore has been criticized on this very blog. It’s now your duty to defend him! Duel, duel!
on March 28th, 2007 at 4:36 am
To further pile on Gore, and to echo Vicki’s point that changing behavior of people with more resources has a better effect, I will note that I received the following email today:
(NB: lightly edited to remove smirking potshots at SCLM)
The Story of Two Houses
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HOUSE # 1:
>>
>> A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
>> Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all
>> heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy
>> than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average
>> bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month.
>> In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel),
>> this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an
>> American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow
>> belt,” either. It’s in the South.
>>
>> HOUSE # 2:
>>
>> Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national
>> university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current
>> home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square
>> feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American
>> southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps
>> drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The
>> water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it
>> in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural
>> gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a
>> conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is
>> collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern.
>> Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground
>> purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then
>> irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native
>> to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
>>
>> HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
>> Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and
>> filmmaker) Al Gore.
>>
>> HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas.
>> Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of
the
>> President of the United States, George W. Bush.
This doesn’t redound in Bush’s favor as much as the letter writer thinks, but it doesn’t help Gore much, and changes in his behavior — which I understand he is in the middle of making — would do a lot of good, both in terms of perception and in terms of energy consumption.
on March 28th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
If the Gandhi quote, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” is to be believed, I guess we are in stage #3 — the fight. The right seems to have gone from mocking the notion of climate change to saying, “But, Ma! Al Gore is bad too!”
on March 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
The right seems to have gone from mocking the notion of climate change to saying, “But, Ma! Al Gore is bad too!â€
which is why this argument makes no sense as a defense of bush. if you don’t believe in global warming, why bother with all this stuff? if you do, then why not, you know, enact some laws?
it’s interesting that the facts about bush’s house seem to have originated in an environmentalist article attacking bush, here. and then was attached to the later facts about gore.
Nonetheless, the story still doesn’t make gore look good, and he should be used to fighting off ridiculous attacks after that 2000 election. Earth tones, indeed!