As Americans, one of our biggest challenges in steps towards sustainability is surmounting routine and questioning social norms. Acts of repetition, some that have lasted for generations, provide a knee-jerk adversity to progressive change in daily activities even if the resulting changes would be minor. I spent my holiday season in London for ten days and my foreign surroundings seemed to be a testament to how little most would notice a number of positive changes.
When it comes to setting a benchmark for sustainability in daily routine, what I saw in England was what I would hope the American landscape will come to emulate (even if one could argue we should already be there.) Admittedly, my time in Europe is embarrassingly limited and that could explain the intensity with which I noticed some of the encouraging differences from the American culture that I am used to.
In London, efficiency seemed to be a given. Staying in two different flats (read: apartments) while I was abroad and visiting numerous establishments, nearly everywhere I went utilized technology proven to reduce consumption. Incandescent bulbs were rare, traded for either fluorescent varieties or dimmable halogens. In both residences, every toilet had dual-flush capabilities. Every sink was low-flow. Water-heaters were smaller with less capacity and had timers to shut off at night while nearly all appliances were more compact. I was not taking any meter readings, but I have to imagine these flats (not markedly smaller than New York equivalents in terms of square footage) used much less energy and water than their American counterparts.
When faced with all of these differences from our normal surroundings, the adaptation required by myself and those I traveled with was non-existent—as I think it would be for most Americans. One does not reach beneath a low-flow faucet and remark on how much less water they find. We never felt accosted by poor lighting. It is true that not everyone could take a 15 minute shower if we all wanted hot water, but so what? We took quick showers instead.
Americans (including builders, vendors and consumers) have to get over misplaced feelings of sacred comfort and entitlement because these kinds of small changes can make big differences. Every dual-flush toilet can save nearly 25 gallons per week, per person. A low-flow showerhead can knock off another 75 gallons per week, per person. Lighting often makes up a quarter of our energy bills. Moreover, any changes that people make would be forgotten within six weeks and merely accepted as the new standard.
It was reassuring to see a population that operated under the belief that striving for efficiency should be expected. I was reminded of a lecture given by Thom Mayne at Greenbuild 2007 in Chicago where he was talking about how he seldom referred to his buildings as “green” despite them being notably sustainable. To him, it was simply smart design. Why wouldn’t one make a building efficient? Why wouldn’t one try to minimize materials and waste? As he put it, that’s just good architecture.
Given how far America has to go to catch up to such a model, we should be reaching for the “low-hanging fruit” as greenies so often like to say. Once we get over the hump of throwing ourselves into a new routine, progress only gets easier.
December 31, 2009 at 10:40 am
Efficiency is a great thing. Only problem with Europe is that because socialism has permeated their societies they must scrimp to survive. With the governments running their lives, they have not only lost most of their personal freedoms, they also have very little disposable income to spend. If their tiny flats and light bulbs are so great they would already be prevalent in America. “Evil American capitalists” would have squeezed millions of dollars out of these ideas if they were so wonderful. Bottom line, what you described as things to emulate are really signs of economic failure among many European nations. Tiny cars and apartments aren’t signs of success, they are signs of failure and struggle. Personally, I’m not interested in emulating this at all.
Unfortunately, America is accelerating on the path toward emulating European socialism. I’m amazed at how easily Americans are willing to give up their personal freedoms to federal and state governments. Nothing in life is free – one day our nation will wake up to discover that we sold our most precious asset, personal freedom, for promises from socialist politicians who claimed their corrupt bureaucratic programs would save the day. Despite its flaws, there is no nation on earth better than America and nothing more valuable than the personal freedoms we enjoy here.
January 1, 2010 at 9:52 pm
🙁
I see comments like these frequently (and likely as not, bearing the undeniably conservative stamp, but that’s a differnt subject, for a different time).
Sadly, the above comments miss the point on a number of levels, chief among them are these:
* Increasingly, the US is seen as falling into more of a “developing nation” camp than a leading industrialized power. Cell phone coverage is weaker, mass transit is less efficient, and many popular, powerful electronics goods are on sale right now in Europe and in Asia that one simply cannot get here. This is not because we “greedy capitalists” have deemed them not good ideas, but rather, because we are failing to invest sufficiently in critical next-century infrastructure for them to matter or make much difference. The world is and will move on…with or without us.
* Many of these nations which have supposedly “given up their freedoms” and are “scrimping to survive” actually have a standard of living that’s as high, or higher than our own, with more benefits, more time off, and more personal liberties than our own fear-based policies currently allow for (pat acts 1 and 2 being just the tip of the iceberg).
* As the site author has pointed out, “personal freedoms” do not give one the unrestricted license to burn resources without consequence. Like it or not…acknowledge it or not, we as a People, have a responsibility not only to ourselves and our immediate families, but also to one another, and acknowledging that simple truth does not make one a “socialist.” Without that simple truth, society in ANY form (includng the one inhabited by the “evil American Capitalist” simply cannot exist).
* Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the simple truth that conservation of limited resources is a good and responsible thing to do, and a necessary course of action to take if we have any hope of supporting the soon to be 9 BILLION human beings on planet earth. Further, the items mentioned here are no-brainers because they make ecological, environmental, and economic sense. That’s win-win-win, no matter how you slice it, and the sooner we get onboard with these ideas, the more real FREEDOM we’ll find ourselves with. This, in addition to finally taking our place at the table as good and responsible stewards who are taking care of our own immediate needs, even as we take steps to preserve the future for our children.
I’m bookmarking this site. This is good stuff.
-Chris
January 2, 2010 at 7:44 am
Changes aren´t welcome for nobody!
Unfortunately or not, just one side has to be the social reality. The true is sources are not unlimited, it is true that the cycle of production is linear no circular as the recycle indicates a new use for the same sources. Let me I give you a couple of examples driving through streets of Florida I notice a huge green mountain of at least 100 meters which not harmonize with the rest of the geography, after looking around and top I notice black birds flying the reason they were attracted by the smells and ripe organics of their deposits, tones of garb ash! Second, as immigrant in Georgia attracted by their enormous economic development and one of the greatest green forest surrounding the city with an average of two trees by inhabitant, later I found out its water that citizens were provide was the product of recycling water. Meaning, water sources are not enough for their population’ demand, as result drain water is recycled with bunch of chemicals and particles returned to its citizens. I think at this point a got your attention. If you cannot see this, maybe, you have seen the Avatar movie with picture my analogy. I want to ask you who is right, what kind of future you want to offer to your kids, and if you are aware of taking the necessary decision to limit your habits and make changes to leave something to your kids? The answer cannot be sources are unlimited, or if I don´t have availability I will pay to other neighbors or countries. Please reflect my point.
January 3, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I highly disagree that socialism imposes on personal freedoms of Europeans. Living in a fairly socialist country myself (Canada) I feel very fortunate. Having been to both Europe and the USA I would far prefer the lifestyle Europeans have. I would much prefer the benefits socialism provides than the ‘benefits’ American capitalism does — free education anyone? free healthcare? It is disgusting that a nation that is so full of wealth has so many people lacking in things like basic healthcare.
Americans, including my semi-socialist Canada, would GREATLY benefit from more practices of moderation like the Europeans.
January 4, 2010 at 9:18 am
I’m always baffled when Americans look at Europe and think ‘socialism’… This blog refers to time spent in England, where there hasn’t been a significant socialist voice in the House of Commons for about twenty years.
The US is the only nation which we appear socialist in comparison to, and if that’s because we’re entitled to free health care, or because the chasm between rich and poor isn’t quite as wide as it is in the US, then I say bring on the socialism.
I’m also baffled when you think of Europe as ‘struggling’, when these days many European countries beat you in quality of life indices, however you like to measure it, in particular in Scandinavia where green issues like the ones under discussion here are tightly regulated indeed.
January 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm
wow…it never ceases to amaze me that people like you exist. Such misguided (and, unfortunately, very strong) feelings and attitudes towards things that you, clearly, know little about.
Amit
http://www.GreenZu.com
December 31, 2009 at 11:03 am
Mark, thanks for stopping by. I agree that freedom in a democratic, capitalistic society is a good model that afford us opportunities that most people in the world do not get to enjoy. I am no advocate for socialism, but I am always discouraged when people tout idealized models of government, as if they could ever exist. Pure, market-driven, unregulated capitalism is impossible. Everyday, as Americans, we prove how we take advantage of opportunities to abuse the system at the expense of others. Some regulation is unavoidable which means that any solution we come to will be a shade of gray that requires some level of imperfect judgment.
I also do not agree with the idea that democracy and the pursuit of personal freedoms is a free pass to indulge in any level of personal activity, including consumption. I support free will and personal freedom in choices that do not negatively affect others. Efficiency is simply smart and America’s amorous relationship with needless excess is embarrassing. In this country, it is legal to leave every shower in your house on all day if you can pay for it, but that does not mean it is smart or that anyone should be doing it.
Restraint and efficiency are not signs of struggle, they’re a sign of an educated, and perhaps more humble, populace.
January 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Very good answer mr. Caine.
I’d also add that this efficiency you refer to is in fact a demonstration of capitalism… isn’t it? Isn’t efficiency based from the competition of resources? Isn’t it taking advantage of a new ideia for profit?
About Europe and Socialism… well I hear that a lot this days, for some reason Americans seem to associate Europe with socialism. Is it because of the global healthcare reform? Is it because the media keep bombarding people with political-biased-information this months?
I call it propaganda… yup, socialism entering the home of every American family and it seems you’re buying it mr. Mark.
January 1, 2010 at 6:03 am
I live in The Hague and I do not agree that “tiny cars and apartments are signs of failure and struggle” as Mark puts it. We could afford a bigger apartment and a bigger car if we want to — as can most of our friends. If we can make do with what we have now what is the use of going for something bigger? This is where the flaw lies when it comes to consumption — anything that is small or thrifty is “poor” or economically-challenged. And bigger-is-better mentality is prevalent and wrongly associated with affluence.
The choice of European citizens in general to live greener has nothing to do with lost freedoms or socialism or any form of government. In Europe we call it responsible citizenship arising from a highly educated populace who have developed a greater sense of awareness and responsibility towards the environment. It is not political, it is purely a collective moral decision.
And no one is complaining about losing their personal freedoms in the process.
January 1, 2010 at 8:12 am
Well put, Melinda. Thanks for your thoughts. I could not agree more. When losing the ability to choose a needless option for the sake of personal gluttony is considered “losing freedoms,” there has to be something wrong with the society’s barometer of priorities. In the end, I don’t necessarily think that Americans do not care, we simply have trouble being told that we have been doing things incorrectly–even when changing is possible and beneficial.
January 1, 2010 at 9:26 am
Europe may be able to balance itself better in some areas because the country-states are smaller. And, unlike America, Europe didn’t screw itself up financially by creating unsustainable bubbles –mostly in housing.
It’s going to be difficult to “fix” America and I doubt trying to emulate a Euro model is going to work any better for us. Maybe there’ s a part of the US we can use as a Euro test case. I proposed in one of my own posts a way to fix Detroit, but it’s not a Euro model.
January 1, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Agreed. I think that America’s position in a number of areas (housing, power grid, water system, transportation) requires unique solutions as we have already gone past where Europe models may have traveled. I think what is important to emulate is the mentality that efficiency and utilizing the best available technology is considered the standard. How that gets implemented and where the best places for savings are can be decided on a case-by-case basis.
January 1, 2010 at 11:43 am
agree, America seems complex when it comes to minds and thoughts, people care about individualism more, while citizens in other countries care about both oneself and its impacts on others…
great post.
January 1, 2010 at 3:17 pm
There is nothing wrong with becomming more efficent in our daily lives. But,after liveing in England for three years it is safe to say the Governmental control that comes from the English lifestyle leaves much to be desired. Do not forget we seperated from England two hundred plus years ago.
Blessings,
AV1
January 1, 2010 at 3:26 pm
I suppose then that my 18,000 gallon swimming pool qualifies me as a glutton, and my need for sufficient quantity and quality of lumens due to my presbyopia is a personal moral failing due to my age?
Decisions have consequences, and I am comfortable with my decisions to have a swimming pool for my family and friends to enjoy, and sufficient light that I don’t injure myself in semidarkness while trying to “lessen my impact.”
‘What is the object of the act?’ is the ethical and moral benchmark that I use, and since the “Object” of my actions is neither gluttony, selfishness, nor wanton squandering of resources, I’ll continue to use the lights of my choosing, take showers without guilt regardless of length, and invite my friends to enjoy the simple pleasures of a swim in my pool.
Sacrifice does not mean “to give up.” It means “to make holy.” And my moral use of the resources I need is just as ‘holy” as the confused Orwellian claim that less for us equals more for the planet.
January 1, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Miles, thanks for your comments. There is certainly a difference between lessening one’s quality of life and changing social norms in order to alter one’s effect on the environment and its people. While the former may be an admirable goal, I would not label it a necessity even if only because I think a huge difference could be made without reaching that extreme. Changing lighting systems to include low-voltage halogens, dimmers and timers while using efficient appliances and shutting them off at night could leave one with exactly the same amount of lumens and services but much fewer kilowatt-hours.
There are certainly people that strive to live minimal lifestyles in order to reduce their carbon footprint, but most of us are really so far from that that we could make a huge difference just by being smarter about how we use what it is we have. I do not think that many of us strive for gluttony, but that does not mean we take the time to actually assess our actions and weigh options for change.
January 2, 2010 at 9:20 am
Thanks for a thoughtful and non scolding answer.
I agree that consideration of what can make a difference is important.
For instance, when we moved to this house, realizing that we had a pool, we decided to not run the air conditioning. We felt that was a responsible trade off. I just completed my MBA and almost went blind hitting the books using inadequate lighting. So I make no apologies about high quality and quantity lighting in my study.
We have always run smaller, fuel efficient cars since my wife purchased her first Honda Civic in 1974. (It was the first Civic, not the CVCC). And we have been composting and gardening since the mid 1970’s. We pick our spots. As others have posted, there is no one size fits all solution, and trying to arrive at one in our frontier independence culture will be difficult at best.
Thanks for not scolding.
January 1, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Yes, balance is the goal, but we are, as a species, still in our infancy.
The gray areas are wide, so “patience” is the word of the day.
Fortunately, there are voices like yours to help guide us in a positive direction. You obviously understand how important it is speak out against waste and abuse, because silence equals consent.
On the other hand, much of the criticism of the USA (from within and without) is unfair. For one, the idea of comparing certain aspects of our society with those of others without considering the mitigating circumstances has huge holes in logic.
Another issue seems to be a lack of acknowledgment by so many around the world of anything positive about us; past, present or future.
In my opinion, our contributions as a nation to the human race far outweigh our transgressions.
I guess what I am saying is that I agree with you that running the shower for no good reason is idiotic, but I also believe we need to think about finding more water so our species can continue. Eventually, stuff is going to run out here on Earth and all the conservation in the world will not change that.
Arguing over the resources here on our planet is so penny wise-pound foolish. A better use of our energy would be to find other places in the Universe into which we can expand, otherwise the future of our species seems grim.
Besides, I think we already have enough “Big Brother” in our lives, and I would be against the formation of “The Shower Police”.
Yes, conservation as a philosophy is admirable, but almost any philosophy can be taken too far. Balance, as you stated so well, is the key. I so wish folks would not judge us so harshly.
Conserve, of course, but don’t feel too guilty for once in a while enjoying the pleasure of a long, hot shower.
January 1, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Certainly, komincents. I am not really in favor of needing government regulation. I am a proponent of small-government. I would rather more people just be conscious of the issues and react accordingly. The easiest way in reducing the need for regulation is putting more citizens in the position to make informed decisions. Indeed… balance is integral with a little bit of “common sense.” That is, in the end, really the purpose of writing here.
January 1, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Let me just briefly say one more thing, if I may please, on the issue of “Global Warming”. I believe that the Earth goes through cycles and even if one accepts the science behind the conclusion that we are warming now, it, and much worse has happened before. I am not convinced we are warming. But, if we are, I am not convinced human activity is largely to blame. Maybe we are and maybe it is and maybe it is going to get really bad for us, but as long as the science is in question, I cannot jump on that train.
However, clear-cutting the rain forests, spewing noxious gasses into the air and other penny wise-pound foolish exploitation of the planet is obviously poor policy in the extreme, and should not be allowed. Unfortunately, because of the lack of trust in the integrity of the world bodies tasked with gathering consensus on such issues (due directly to some questionable, and at times purposeful manipulation of data), any agreement with any teeth is most likely not in our near future. Ironic the very people who feel the most passionately about the cause are the ones who hurt it the most.
Of course, “the greener the better”…but hyperbole is an enemy of the cause. Large studies by independent bodies is the way to my vote.
Thanks again for allowing me this forum by which we can debate this issue. Peace to you and yours.
January 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm
I would like to point out one situation that I find particularly despicable. It exists in America and Europe. It is the phenomenon of not having to pay for all your utilities, or having it priced already into your rent. This means that some people have absolutely no inhibitions. I know people who pay the heating bill, but not the water bill, so they have told me that they run the shower for 30 minutes to heat the place up. That is despicable.
January 1, 2010 at 8:21 pm
This was well written and I agree with your viewpoint. However, as an American, I have watched our society become more and more concerned with out doing ‘the Smith’s’ or rather, their next door neighbor. It seems each family is driven to drive the larger/higher cost (often less efficent) vehicle, build a larger and newer home for a family two or three, and live on extended credit, all in the name of being ‘better’ than their neighbor.
Sadly, I don’t think Americans will ever change until they’re hit where they live – in their pocketbook. Rising fuel costs are starting to force people to ‘downsize’ and drive efficent cars; the recession has forced many to learn to scale back on spending, and thus, put a cap on their own greed. Have these things hit us hard enough to the point where we’ll start to change? Most likely not, but hopefully more and more people will start to take notice of their behavior and do what’s right for the planet, not themselves.
January 1, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Unfortunately, I think that this is all too true–that many of us mistake that the low-cost solution is always the best or that the right choice always proves to be the economic option. As a result, change is best accepted by Americans when they can make/save money in the process.
While I have faith that with enough time the market would find its way towards efficiency and stewardship, I don’t know if it will happen soon enough. As a result, I think we need a bit of coaxing that can help give the marketplace (and its consumers) a push in the right direction so we can stop wasting time (and energy, and resources) stuck in dated routines.
January 1, 2010 at 9:52 pm
In total agreement with Melinda why going for something that is bigger when one is comfortable with what they have. I believe that what Mark failed to understand is that everyone as a choice and sometimes giving up that personal freedom allows one to achieve better goals.
January 1, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I think conserving energy, the general point, is a good idea that is independent of politics and ideologies. I have a brother who was obsessed with V8 wide-bodied American cars. He used to manage Exxon, and then Shell, stations in Guam so you see he afforded a gas guzzler. I think he was ridiculous.
And if American car manufactures kept thinking like him they would have been made obsolete by the Japanese who go for practicality. And think when any American industry goes down, where would you Americans be?
On with conserving energy, folks! It cannot be wrong.
January 1, 2010 at 10:41 pm
What comes next: Following Asian influence.
Hopefully.
January 2, 2010 at 2:46 am
Why are we bother ? don’t bother at all. Earth has a natural capability
to solve it problems, hasn’t it ? So enjoy the world 🙂
January 2, 2010 at 11:39 am
I agree, it’s pretty amazing how far behind the US is with many things including green technology. Look at the continued prevalence of giant vehicles like SUVs and trucks. We’re not in Texas anymore folks.
Time to buck up and go green and efficient.
January 2, 2010 at 12:21 pm
The UK is in such a dire situation that austerity measures are probably essential. Much of their electric generating capacity is due to come off-line in the next few years due to age and pollution controls, without being replaced. They will begin to see rolling blackouts some time between 2013 and 2016, and given the time it takes to built power plants, it’s already too late to do anything about it. (The Economist, August 6, 2009.)
Also, I’ve often remarked on those awful low-flow sinks. But then, I don’t come from a British tradition of suffering in silence.
January 2, 2010 at 1:28 pm
… Oh, if only there was some major event, it need not be cataclysmic, that would get America as a nation thinking from a higher level in these regards this excellent debate brings to the surface.
You see pockets here and there in California… Actually, California is very far ahead of the curve for the rest of the nation. This has to change, for the entire country. Consciousness needs to rise…
I got an opportunity to live in Europe many years ago and even then the level of consciousness in regard to living more meaningful lives with respect to the planet impressed me.
America must learn…
January 3, 2010 at 3:40 am
Translation: “the sooner we force people to do things our way the more real FREEDOM we’ll find ourselves with”
Forcing people to do things your way is never a “win win win” and it is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is not measured in what gadgets companies market in your area, freedom is measured by how much government restricts what they are and are not allowed to do. What ignorant, spoiled rotten, self-loathing liberal twaddle!
George Washington, a much brighter man than you, warned Americans that Government is not reason; government is not eloquent; government is force!”
A lesson you have not only not learned, but probably never even bothered to think about.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Liberals never learn from anything!
Oh, and by the way, the United States did more to reduce carbon emissions WITHOUT new government standards than Europe did WITH them. Which blows your entire post out of the water.
January 3, 2010 at 10:00 am
I am not sure what facts back up this “reality check” as to our position or direction for sustainability in America. As I mentioned, in my mind freedom is not a carte-blanche to exercise one’s will without restriction or hesitation in an endless quest to satisfy personal desires. It is a privilege of advanced citizenship given to those who know how to use it and when they end up abusing it, regulation is the result (though in this post I do not think there is any talk about forcing people to do anything, rather that Americans should be doing this on their own.)
But since you brought up regulation, the swiftest way to reduce the need for regulation is reduce the amount of uninformed decisions and actions–like claims without facts. I am undoubtedly pleased to see a staunch conservative mind so confident in our ability to reduce emissions without new legislation, but I am not sure I understand the details of how that will happen or why Americans (right and left) will have suddenly changed their perspective enough to voluntarily surmount the efforts of countries like England that have been doing this for a while.
Thanks for your thoughts.
January 3, 2010 at 11:00 am
First of all, great post. Second of all, many awful comments (although many good and perceptive ones as well). I’ve read most of the comments on this page now, and I think many of them stray from the issue at hand, and some looks more like a political battle, which it need not do. There is one basic fact that’s evident in this post. It’s a fact that can not be condemned on any rational basis, as there is no evidence to support its falsehood. It is, in my opinion, one of the very few absolute truths in this world:
It is unwise in all aspects of life, be it economical, environmental or any other, to waste resources.
We live on a planet, a limited space, with limited resources. It can provide us with everything we need, but in order for it to do that we have to use the resources efficiently and minimize waste, so that our planet has time to regenerate the waste we do produce into useful resources. Our planet does this automatically, but its capabilities are limited and we can’t put too much stress on it; we must allow it time to process the waste we produce.
If you think this is an environmentalist statement, or a socialist manifesto, or anything like that, you need to get yourself some schooling in basic economic theory. One of the most basic principles of economic theory is that practically all our resources are scarce, meaning that we have a limited supply. The supplies WILL regenerate over time, for example we WILL get more fossil fuels in a few million years or so, but practically speaking the resources are limited, scarce. Given this scarcity of resources, it is clear that we must use the resources we have efficiently so that we get as much as possible out of them. And it is also clear that we must not waste the things producing resources (especially thinking about photosynthesizing plants and bacteria which remove carbon dioxide from the air and provide us with oxygen as well as food, medicines etc.), but instead try and get as much as possible out of them.
So again, the basic fact is that it is unwise in all aspects of life, be it economical, environmental or any other, to waste resources.
January 3, 2010 at 12:15 pm
A thoughtful reply, but one that leaves more questions than answers. One man’s waste is another man’s reasonable consumption. Certainly in arid lands water is more precious than those undergoing the monsoon; or those who have ready access to such supplies as to have local abundance. Must we all be held to the same lowest common denominator standard of ‘scarcity?’ That is what regulations do by paving over the differences between localities.
Interesting that you bring up economics. In economics, we learned that both buyers and sellers have different ideas about something’s ‘worth.” In any transaction, a seller thinks its worth getting rid of at the same price as the buyer thinks it worth acquiring.
Scarcity presumes no substitutions, and as R.Buckminster Fuller taught us we have no need to fear running out of ‘stuff’ for substitutes are always created, and mass is reduced in our technology as we progress. So has the need for energy. My first ‘portable’ radio had tubes and a 27 volt dry cell battery. The transistor made that dinosaur a museum piece. My first ‘portable’ TV was made out of steel stampings for chassis and cabinet and took two fraternity boys to lift and used 110V electricity. My Ipod touch weighs ounces, and is capable of being recharged by a small solar cell battery pack that I got from Dell.
What we ought to be working on is creating incentives for people to develop, implement, and harvest the abundant energy incident to us daily. Instead, we get zoning regulations, Not In My Back Yard protests, and historic districts and precautionary principle nonsense obstructing the new technologies.
To recognize the need for change is not sufficient; With it must also come the embrace, not just mere acceptance, of the changes that will be needed to realize the desired state.
It is not enough to recognize that a problem exists. One must be willing to accept the novel solutions that will be needed to solve it.
I’m afraid that social programs and regulations are obstacles to solving problems, not a means of doing so.
January 3, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Well, having read all the comments I’ve decided not to comment upon them. There are plenty of things in there I could rant about if I wanted to, so I’ll just comment on the post itself.
I hope you had a good time here in London Mr Caine. As a Londoner myself, some of your comments intrigue me.
I’ve never been to America; I’ve lived in or near London all my life so of course I cannot compare our society or living conditions to yours. I can expand upon what mine is like, though.
Certainly, I wouldn’t say that we keep efficiency in mind at all times. We just get on with living our lives. Perhaps if I were to go to America I’d be utterly shocked at the apparent waste and excess you describe. If I’m living an efficient life then I don’t notice it.
I don’t live in the dark because my lamps are low energy and dimmable, and I take 10 minute showers with a boiler which only comes on when the hot water is needed or we manually put the heating on. Unless I were feeling particularly indulgent or ill, I cannot see what I could possible do in the shower which would take more than 10 minutes!
I’d say the other comments are indicative of ignorance: I don’t feel the pinch of government regulation at every turn, nor am I personally a socialist. I live in one of the most affluent parts of London, and believe me capitalism is rife.
Regulation is not Orwellian, it’s simply one of the many tools in place to enforce social norms. All lamps should be low energy; all utilities should be metered to avoid free riders; appliances should be regulated to a high standard of efficiency without compromising on function.
I’m curious what freedoms I’ve lost or been denied by living here, if anyone would like to inform me…
January 3, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I remember the 15-min. showers from the times that I went on summer vacations to Europe with my family (and that was more than a decade ago). It’s true that Europe is doing a better job at conserving energy and water than the U.S. But given the American lifestyle, the progress of enviromental and conservationalist causes here is not likely to speed up. Of course. 🙂 Thanks for the insights and the article!
Natalie
January 4, 2010 at 2:04 am
15 minute showers!? How filthy must one be to need 15 minutes in the shower?? How about 5 minutes, tops.
January 4, 2010 at 6:11 am
Fascinating post, and it’s good to see you taking such positives from your trip to London.
You’re right that the gulf in environmental awareness between Europe and America appears as a yawning chasm at times, and the remarkable ignorance shown by your first commenter (and several others to follow) serves to underline exactly how far US society has to go in living up to its responsibilities.
Nevertheless, here in Europe we have a long way to go, and although we drive fewer miles in smaller cars and make efforts to use up less of this planet’s finite resources, there remains much more that we can do. Nearly everything we do comes at an environmental cost, and there are decisions to make about how we heat our homes, how we commute, what we eat and how far it’s travelled before we eat it, what we buy and how we spend our leisure time as well.
There are individual decisions to make at almost every level, but the good news is that a move to a less carbon-consumptive society does not have to mean a retreat in our living standards. It just means looking for more energy-efficient ways to do things. For the most part, the technology already exists and it is simply a matter of choosing to use it.
The example you cite about phasing out incandescent light bulbs is a good one. The energy savings are small, but across a city or a nation they add up to make a difference. Much more dramatic change is easily achievable by insulating our homes and offices better. This is relatively inexpensive and has a short-term payback as well as keeping us warmer in cold weather, too.
Those commenters who link environmental responsibility to socialism are way off the mark. Increasingly it’s likely that individual actions will have a greater influence on government policy than the other way around. A perfect example of this comes from the individual and local campaigns in the UK over recent years to encourage people to use fewer plastic bags for their shopping. These (entirely voluntary) initiatives paved the way for a widespread change in public attitude.
In 2009, this process has been extended across the UK through the 10:10 campaign — aiming to reduce carbon consumption by 10% during 2010.
To quote The Guardian this week,
In the first 120 days since the initiative was launched, more than 50,000 individuals have signed up, as well as more than 2,000 companies, from high-street giants to tiny family businesses; some 100 councils, including major cities such as Manchester and Edinburgh; over 1,500 schools, further education colleges and universities, and at least 1,000 other organisations ranging from churches and hospitals (10% of NHS Trusts have now signed up) to Bafta and the Lovebox and Bestival pop festivals.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of 10:10’s rise has been the breadth of its appeal: Barnet Labour Group alongside the Cambridge University Conservative Association, the London Jewish Film festival alongside Islamic publishers MELS (as well as Quaker, Catholic and Hindu groups); comprehensives alongside the country’s most famous public schools; Tottenham Hotspur Football Club next to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. As one NGO veteran put it: “10:10 is the first climate campaign to reach beyond the usual suspects.”
And it certainly won’t be the last. Individual action is how this train is going to be turned around.
Best wishes from London, and keep up the good work.
January 5, 2010 at 3:58 pm
This is a great article because it touches on the root cause of our problems: misguided lifestyle choices. We think (in developed nations) because things have been the way they have for so long, that they are the way they should continue to be. But this is false, because, we are products of nature, and nature has its own laws. It is in our best interest to acknowledge them and align our behavior accordingly.
We must be prepared to find out that what we think to be true today will be updated tomorrow. This is the emergent nature of knowledge. We learn from our mistakes.
Amit
http://www.GreenZu.com