My favorite Christmas was on a farm in southern Illinois. The farmhouse where we lived was a 900 square foot, two bedroom, one bathroom brick home, with a hand-dug well, a cistern to collect rain water, and a septic system that would overflow if we used it too much. There were only one or two electrical outlets in each room, which meant we couldn’t turn on too many lights. We had one telephone, one TV, and one computer for our family of five. If we tried to cheat and put in a power cord to accommodate, say, the lights on a Christmas tree, we’d blow a fuse.
We were naturally green because we didn’t have a choice. The way our house was structured, we simply couldn’t use too much of anything. We had enough and no more. And, you know what? That was fine. In fact, it was great. Our kids had a ball there, even without all of the latest, greatest electronic gadgets. We grew closer as a family because the living space was such that we had to spend time together.
Now, we live in the OC in a 3,000 square foot home with more bedrooms and bathrooms than I care to count. We have phones and TVs and computers, and we can turn on our Christmas lights anytime we want. We never have to think about the fuse box or about a septic system or anything else. And maybe that’s part of the problem: When everything is this easy, we tend to take things for granted and keep using more. There are no natural barriers to consuming too much energy or water, so we simply don’t live within our environmental means. We don’t even think about it.
But this year, I’m going to think. I’m going to look at the way we’re celebrating Christmas and find a way to do it with more care and less waste. For me, being green this season isn’t just about buying energy efficient LED Christmas lights or recycling my Christmas tree or even donating to an environmental cause. It’s about having enough and no more. It’s about having a little less than we want so we can really savor what we get, instead of having so much we don’t even notice.
So I’m not going to buy everything or do everything this Christmas, which most likely means my family isn’t going to have as much stuff as we usually do. But I am going to think of one thing we can do together to make that day memorable. Maybe, instead of going ice skating in the back forty like we did at Christmas on the farm, we’ll have a bonfire by the beach, California style. Who knows? But I’m sure it’ll be fine. In fact, it’ll be great.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Legislating Innovation
There are two environmental propositions on the California ballot this year, both of which promote the use of alternative energy. Unfortunately, both of them are expensive and neither of them will necessarily get the job done. As we say, here in So Cal: “What a bummer.”
California already has a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in place that will require utilities to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. Prop 7 will go even further in requiring utilities to get 50% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2025.
However, one of the problems in changing from conventional to renewable energy is that the steady transmission of that renewable energy from its source to the end user is not always possible. Or, if it is possible, it will cost more than any of us can afford to pay. Either the energy source itself is intermittent or the ability to transmit it from point A to point B is not there. Looking at it that way, mandating an RPS of 50% is like trying to get blood out of a turnip. Without a reliable energy source or an adequate transmission infrastructure in place, it’s just not going to happen.
A similar argument could be made against Prop 10, which wants the state of California to pick up the tab for alternative fuel vehicles by offering rebates to those who purchase those vehicles. That may sound okay at first glance, but what it really translates to is a lot of natural gas vehicles on the road…and not a natural gas station in sight.
Politicians just don’t seem to realize that their job is not to mandate change or to make a market for a particular product but to facilitate change and allow the market to do what it does best – address people’s needs during times of change.
People will change if the change makes sense. If my electric bills jump from, say, $100 to $200 per month, I’ll start looking for ways to conserve energy and also start looking at alternative energy sources…if they are available at a price I can afford.
By the same token, if I’m driving a gas guzzler and gas goes up to $4 or $5 per gallon, chances are I’ll consider making a change to a more fuel efficient vehicle. If gas goes up to $10 per gallon, I’ll definitely make that change. Why? Because it makes sense.
Mandating utilities to purchase a fixed percentage of energy from renewable sources or paying companies to purchase a fleet of alternative fuel vehicles, however desirable those actions might be, is like building a dam. It solves one problem but doesn’t take into consideration the downstream effects on the natural ecosystem…or, in this case, the free market ecosystem.
If we really want to switch to renewable energy, then our focus should be on ways to incentivize the production and use of renewables and to implement a “full cost” accounting of fossil fuel production. That way, consumers can make the best choices given the technologies at hand.
California already has a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in place that will require utilities to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. Prop 7 will go even further in requiring utilities to get 50% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2025.
However, one of the problems in changing from conventional to renewable energy is that the steady transmission of that renewable energy from its source to the end user is not always possible. Or, if it is possible, it will cost more than any of us can afford to pay. Either the energy source itself is intermittent or the ability to transmit it from point A to point B is not there. Looking at it that way, mandating an RPS of 50% is like trying to get blood out of a turnip. Without a reliable energy source or an adequate transmission infrastructure in place, it’s just not going to happen.
A similar argument could be made against Prop 10, which wants the state of California to pick up the tab for alternative fuel vehicles by offering rebates to those who purchase those vehicles. That may sound okay at first glance, but what it really translates to is a lot of natural gas vehicles on the road…and not a natural gas station in sight.
Politicians just don’t seem to realize that their job is not to mandate change or to make a market for a particular product but to facilitate change and allow the market to do what it does best – address people’s needs during times of change.
People will change if the change makes sense. If my electric bills jump from, say, $100 to $200 per month, I’ll start looking for ways to conserve energy and also start looking at alternative energy sources…if they are available at a price I can afford.
By the same token, if I’m driving a gas guzzler and gas goes up to $4 or $5 per gallon, chances are I’ll consider making a change to a more fuel efficient vehicle. If gas goes up to $10 per gallon, I’ll definitely make that change. Why? Because it makes sense.
Mandating utilities to purchase a fixed percentage of energy from renewable sources or paying companies to purchase a fleet of alternative fuel vehicles, however desirable those actions might be, is like building a dam. It solves one problem but doesn’t take into consideration the downstream effects on the natural ecosystem…or, in this case, the free market ecosystem.
If we really want to switch to renewable energy, then our focus should be on ways to incentivize the production and use of renewables and to implement a “full cost” accounting of fossil fuel production. That way, consumers can make the best choices given the technologies at hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
