Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

A convenient truth

In nearby Bothell

Posted by Clark Williams-Derry (Guest Contributor) at 12:41 PM on 17 Apr 2007

The Seattle Times is reporting on a Bothell family -- the Fraleys -- who are attempting to cut their family's greenhouse-gas emissions by 15 percent in May. Bully for them, and best of luck!

Still, there's something about the Times account of their experiment that rankles, just a bit. It leaves a casual reader with the impression that reducing carbon emissions is a total pain in the behind. To wit:

[The Fraleys] will try to reduce the household's greenhouse-gas emissions by using some common-sense ideas that nonetheless may be inconvenient. [Emphasis added.]

And ...

"I realized this wasn't going to be a cakewalk. The easy changes were already made, and the next one will be more -- painful is not the word -- but will take more effort."

Jeez, that makes sustainability sound like hair shirts and broccoli. Good luck getting people on board with that.

As far as I'm concerned, reducing your family's emissions by 15 percent virtually overnight -- as if on a whim -- is a fantastic experiment. But it's lousy public policy. And it doesn't really resemble the actual process of reducing climate impacts across society as a whole.

A smart climate policy would: a) start by looking for the cheapest and easiest ways of reducing climate impacts, not simply mandating across-the-board sacrifices; and b) aim to change emissions by few percent per year over several decades, not 15 percent overnight.

So the path that the Fraleys are taking isn't the same path that society overall will take as it tackles climate change. Not at all.

  • The Fraleys are making several big, wrenching lifestyle changes, all at once. But a more systematic approach to climate issues would phase in much more slowly.

  • And in order to reduce their climate impacts overnight, the Fraleys have to do some things that are inconvenient. But a smart, society-wide climate change policy would likely focus on a completely different -- and much more painless -- set of solutions.

Just imagine, if you will, that the Fraleys had 5 years to make those changes, not one month.

Over the course of five years, they might have to replace a major appliance or two, or maybe even a furnace. Or they might buy a new car, or new tires. They might have time to take a home energy audit, and follow the most cost-effective recommendations for saving energy. And if he's lucky, John, a piano teacher with clients all over the east side, might be able to concentrate his newer clients closer to his home.

If, each time they made a major decision, they made an energy efficient choice -- an efficient car, low rolling resistance tires, an Energy-Star (or beyond) fridge, a 90 percent plus efficiency furnace, a high-end programmable thermostat, simple home weatherization -- they might wind up saving even more than 15 percent on their energy bills. With good rebate programs for efficiency, they might save some money on their appliances, too.

And they'd do it while barely even noticing the changes. No broccoli, no hair shirt -- just life as (almost) normal.

A smart climate change policy would probably make the 5-year experiment even easier. It would encourage manufacturers to create ever-more efficient cars and appliances, so the Fraleys would have more choices. It might create consumer incentives, to help them make even more efficient choices. It would encourage homebuilders to build more efficient homes, with better insulation and lighting, in neighborhoods where they don't have to drive as much to get where they need to go. And it would even electric utilities into the act, so they'd get even more of their electricity from renewable sources -- so the Fraleys could emit even less carbon whenever they turn on their super-efficient bulbs. And so on.

No hair shirts required.

For years, it's seemed to me that one of the biggest political obstacles to a sane climate policy is that we simultaneously overestimate how rapid and disruptive the changes will have to be, and underestimate how powerful slow change really is.

But the truth is actually fairly convenient: the little changes really do add up to big energy savings; but over the long term, they fade into the background of busy lives that -- like it or not -- are already in a state of constant flux.

convenience

"common-sense ideas that nonetheless may be inconvenient"

If cutting carbon was easy and convenient, we would have done it already. The path of least resistance is not going to take us where we need to go.
Pursuing comfort and convenience has already contributed to higher emissions.

5 years to make a 15% reduction?
I read somewhere that it was more like 5 years to make a 60%-90% reduction.

Good points, Clark

These guys are sending the same environmentalist martyr message that's been circulating since the '70s, and it obviously hasn't been working.

We cut our CO2 by 12 to 15% over the last year or so with an electric hybrid bike, a Prius, and fluorescents. It has been fun, not painful. May spring for a 98 MPG car for our second one when it shows up.

Americans need to start living in smaller, more efficient homes. You could easily cut CO2 by 30-40% just by moving into a small, well insulated mobile home ...God forbid. Would have to market trailer parks as eco communes and start calling trailers Earth Pods or something.

One key lies in the URGE2 concept. Clean up our power generation, use it to run much of our transport, even help heat small homes.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Concrete cottages

Super insulated bio-d.  With all the good stuff, passive solar, PV panels, a small attached wind machine, and all super efficient appliances that run on 10% of what normal ones do.

Much cheaper to build than trailers, but still portable.  Fire, earthquake, and flood resistant.  The initial cost and operating expenses maybe 1/10nth of a normal home too?

Earth bermed installation make heating and cooling loads easy for solar to handle.

How does the planet carry about half the present population at a higher quality of life with a fraction of the present energy use?  This is how.

No matter what we do, the earth has about double the population it should right now.  Reproductive rights for women would adjust that problem.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Complacency Kills Children

Given that we have already awoken potentially huge Warming feedback loops
(such as loss of reflective ice cover, the melting of permafrost, the burning of both tropical & boreal forests, etc)
the warnings that we have 10 years or less to control our emissions seem cogent.
IPCC reports that we need to cut global GHG outputs by 60% to 80% just to stop worsening the problem of excess airborne GHGs.

Blair, Gore, Kerry, and others aiming for 60% to 80% cut by 2050 are thus in reality aiming to continue worsening the problem for at least 43 years.

To have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate destabilization,
with its prospect not only of famine killing millions of African children but also American ones too,
a wrenching pace of change in our way of life seems pre-requisite.

And that in turn will not happen without the adoption of an equitable and efficient Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons,
by which all nations participate.

So while it seems plain that complacency kills, it is also pretty clear that parochialism gets shafted.

Regards,

Billhook

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks