From what I can remember George W Bush wasn't exactly a climate change sceptic, though I doubt he could stay sitting on this fence in the modern Republican Party, but he did hold that we were being unduly pessimistic about our ability to come up with technological solutions. Don't worry, someone's bound to come up with something.
Whilst not wishing to put the dampers on human ingenuity it often seemed to be forgotten that solutions don't just have to be socially acceptable but also scientifically plausible. There's only so much solar energy available for plants to turn into bio-mass and if brewing ethanol from your entire production of corn will only meet a fraction of the demand then it really isn't a sensible solution.
There are 4 main sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings, agriculture, industrial production and transport. Of course these aren't entirely separate. For example, it's been estimated that over the full life cycle of the average building, from its construction through its use and onto its final demolition, over half the emissions come from the journeys we make to get to it. So, even though you've built ever such a good building you still need to put it in the right place. But, equip your building with energy efficient appliances and, above all, make sure that its properly insulated and you'll not only cut emissions but also make it more comfortable.
Take food, the meat rich western diet might be becoming more popular but it's not making us healthier. So, as well as cutting emissions, there are also good health reasons to shift our diet back down food chain. The prospect of eating better quality meat, but less often, hardly feels like a major sacrifice.
In a culture where we're encouraged to demonstrate our status by showing off our possessions its not easy to see how we might get weaned off crude consumerism without a fundamental change in values. But even so, it's possible to imagine a situation where the most valued products are the most long lasting and where our status depends more on the quality of our relationships than our ability to consume. Of course, whether such a change is possible under contemporary consumer capitalism, with its seemingly endless creation of ultimately unsatisfiable wants, is moot.
Reducing emissions from transport is perhaps a bigger problem. At its heart lies a simple fact of physics. You can't speed things up or, if there's friction, keep them moving without expending energy and, by and large, the heavier the things you shift, the faster and further you shift them the more energy it takes. So, a transport system based on moving heavy objects long distances at relatively high speeds is going to be one that uses lots of energy. The alternative is to build our towns and cities in such a way that we simply don't need to travel as much. This means putting the places we live much closer to the places we work, shop and play and, instead of making trips out into the countryside, bringing the countryside into the town. In short, it means creating living spaces, towns and neighbourhoods, where most journeys can be made on foot or by bicycle.
As a teacher I would sometimes bring into class a "solar powered clothes dryer"; a washing line and a couple of pegs. It was to make the point that technology is more than stuff that doesn't quite work yet. For example, a key moment in the history of Information Technology was the invention of the pencil which, because of the ability it gave to produce good quality sketches in the field, revolutionised the study of Natural History.
Thinking back to George W. My reply to him, had there been the slightest chance that he was listening, would have been that the key technologies already exist. Insulation and bicycles.
No comments:
Post a Comment