Dave's talked about the consumerist approach to environmentalism before. Personally, I'm beginning to think that being green is the new conspicuous consumption, and this piece in the WaPo does little to disabuse me of that notion.
Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to see that people are looking to regulate their energy usage and buying more environmental savvy products (I think we have to minimize the extent of our green accolades until examining the whole process of production). Advertisers have cultivated a wonderful - and profitable - new market niche, and those who can afford it may look down their noses at their social inferiors who have yet to adopt the newest green tech.
But no matter how many people are able to live in solar-powered, compost-heated cob houses with cars run on homemade bio-fuel, it's unlikely to put much of a dent in energy consumption given that many will not be able to afford even the most basic green products, that recidivist assholes will try to more than offset personal efficiencies, and, most importantly, the development policies and infrastructure of the cheap-oil age.
In essence, we're trying to gadget our way out of a problem (and who can blame us, given 200 years of technological fixes to many of life's difficulties!) without trying to redress the underlying social relationships that are causing the problem in the first place. We need to come to the realization that a car-dependent lifestyle is quickly becoming unsustainable and work to mitigate the effects on those most vulnerable to the changes, as well as promote development in communities that encourage energy efficiency without having to buy gadgetry - walkable communities, good public transit, etc. Green technology is a great boon, so long as it's integrated in broader social changes that get at the root problem. But from where I sit, we have yet to have a serious national conversation about the problem.
I think that people are coming to that realization. The gadgetry effect you are seeing stems, I think, from producers recognizing a market and rushing to fill it the cheapest, fastest way possible. Or going for the upper-end consumerist market and making $50 organic cotton t-shirts.
ReplyDeleteRemember, the oil economy wasn't built overnight either. Companies like Standard Oil had to build up from nothing, creating demand and inventing new products to fulfill demand as they went. All these little companies that are getting into the biofuel business could be clean energy giants down the road. The need capital, time, and an increased demand for clean energy.
This is also why I don't think ethanol is the huge boondoogle/mistake that some people on the left and right are making it out to be. Unintended consequences, yes, but it is supposed to be a gateway to finding fuel sources that can replace gasoline. Corn just happens to be the most politically expedient. Hopefully, once corn prices reach the point that subsidizing ethanol production doesn't make sense (and I think that day is when E85 is so much cheaper that it is stupid to fill your tank with anything else) then we'll be there. IN other words, we may have to spend a lot of dough to crush oil. That's why we need to end oil subsidies and subsidize all clean tech. But you know this.
Our job, is to keep being the people who are pushing our green brothers and sisters to remember that not exploiting humans is at least as important as not exploiting the environment.