The Enormous Cost of NOT Going Green

OK, today I need a blog called What Devilstower Said.

This is getting ridiculous. ;^) But then, I really enjoy it when everyone else is starting to say all the things I’ve been spouting for years. My husband was really getting sick of listening to my rants. It’s only taken seven years for most people to realize what was obvious to me was going to happen from the beginning. My biggest personal regret is the friends I lost who thought I was crazy and stopped talking to me because they couldn’t accept that Bush and company really would make things this bad. Of course, they won’t bother admitting it now, either.

Americans have needed a wake up call for a long time now, since the seventies when it first really became obvious to some of us that we needed to change the way we live in this country. Going off the gold standard and starting the long downward spiral into debt, cutting deals with the Saudis, could only save us from the reckoning for so long. Unfortunately, we’re about to get it. In spades. Even compact fluorescent lights aren’t going to save us — it’s too little, too late to save us from the choices we made in creating the sprawlconomy.

And here’s yet another great posting on what’s really going down.

Daily Kos: The Enormous Cost of NOT Going Green

It’s impossible to put forward any energy plan, no matter how mild, without facing a deafening chorus of “it’ll cost too much!” That’s the ultimate tool of the burn-everything status quo, the idea that any attempt to limit the damage we’re doing to the world would be so costly that it would sink our economic ship.

But even ignoring the fact that conservative policies celebrating unregulated greed have now brought us to the edge of the biggest economic abyss in a hundred years, there’s something left out of all those dire warnings about the cost of going green. It’s the enormous cost of not going green.

High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone.

The total US national debt just hit the $9 trillion mark this week — a value that seems so large as to be incomprehensible. It will take generations to repay even if logical fiscal policies are restored. Yet it’s less than five years worth of what we’re pumping out of our country to preserve the oil industry. $2 trillion is a year is the price we pay for utter cowardice in changing our relationship to energy.

We shy away from changing how we make cars, because we’re concerned about jobs in the auto industry. We hesitate to halt destructive energy extraction, because we worry about trickle of revenue it generates. We never acknowledge that the price of preserving the status quo far exceeds what it would take to break free of the current paradigm. Faced with eminent starvation, we can’t stop fighting over the last can of beans long enough to plant a garden.

Here’s the deal. Terrorism is not the challenge of our lifetimes. Changing our relationship with energy is the challenge we have to face right now.

In the United States, the rising bill for imported petroleum lowers already anemic consumer savings rates, adds to inflation, worsens the trade deficit, undermines the dollar and makes it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to balance its competing goals of fighting inflation and sustaining growth.

Thirty five years ago, energy companies campaigned that we would all “freeze in the dark” if the Clean Air Act was passed. They were wrong. Now they want to tell you that we’ll all be broke if we try to sever their control over our lives. They’re wrong again. Unless we shake our timidity, twenty years from now they’ll be looking down at a ruined world from the top of their mile-high skyscrapers in Dubai. And they’ll be thinking “Lord, what suckers they were to fall for that.”

Tags:

6 Responses

  1. I agree with what you say.
    Unfortunately, you’re preaching to the choir (when preaching to me).
    I think of the pathetic little things I can do to help the energy/environment crisis, and then read about the number of coal-fired power plants going up around the world (China). I hear the Detroit car makers–whose business plans are killing them–bitch about a pissant potential requirement for increased fuel economy. And on, and on.
    I am not encouraged, I am not hopefu.

  2. of course you are on the mark, donna. when i was deep into compost, trying to get people friendly with red wigglers through knitting, promoting kitchen composting, i experienced all the convolutions of the famous rudy guiliani.

    first, he established compost programs in new york city’s botanical gardens. sanitation dept. had big budget–recycling promoted. as he was leaving office due to term limits, the word was out that it was over for all this. too expensive was new mantra…have to ship the stuff elsewhere. you know where that is: impoverished communities south of the big apple.

    bloomberg then had end of recycling, etc. on his watch. finally, decided to bring it back. all of this produces an ever more cynical populace, garbage trucks roll through new jersey.

    i am so tired of the glossy brochures, the “new” garbage cans. as you point out, none of it is on the scale of what’s needed. and now that black plastic bags have replaced garbage cans in this megalopolis, we have growing population of emboldened rats–amazing n.y. times photos on front of 11/10/07 n.y. times Metro section. (i’ll check if they are in online version).

    thanks for the space to rant, naomi (condom woman a/k/a, the worm lady)

  3. Yes, gerry, the tragedy of the commons indeed. If we don’t use it, someone else will. But at least we won’t be contributing to the further decline.

    It’s difficult to remember that even the little that we can do does make a difference.

    And you’re right, Naomi, if we don’t do it, we get rats. The rats and cockroaches will certainly survive us! Norway rats can live on practically anything as food. They only live about two years, but one female can produce 60 young a year.So their population is explosive in the right conditions. And they nest cooperatively – getting rid of one rat doesn’t stop the problem. The other rats will raise the young.

    I do therapy work and take other animals with Darwin to show people. A few weeks ago we had the Norway rats with us. Some people were fascinated with them, others wanted nothing to do with them. You could almost tell at a glance which people had actually had to deal with them as pasts and not as pets!

  4. Donna:

    I like your way of thinking. Even if we erase our pre-conceptions of “how things should be,” I believe that logic still wins the day… Acting as if human activity is to blame for global warming is smarter than acting as if it is not…

    If we apply the same logic that Bush applied in going to war in Iraq, which was to prevent Saddam from destroying his neighbors with “weapons of mass destruction,” then we would “go to war” with our own potentially destructive behavior by resolving to reduce our known effects on global warming…

    Donna, I believe you may find some inspiration in “Pascal’s Wager,” if you have not already. Please take a look at this blog post, inspired by the wisdom of Blaise Pascal, and let me know if it applies to the “going green” or fighting “global warming” issues…

    http://financialphilosopher.typepad.com/thefinancialphilosopher/

    Cheers…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *