How Should We Approach Saving the Environment?

An interesting commentary on environmentalism appeared today on Eco World discussing the differences between supply side and demand side environmentalism.

At a time like this, where the momentum to do anything to achieve energy independence dovetails fitfully with the momentum to do anything to reduce CO2 emissions, policymakers pressured by environmentalists may enact sweeping legislation that could completely change our way of life. But there are two ways environmentalists can go to pursue their core values in the 21st century, and they represent very, very different choices. One of the most fundamental areas where these two choices diverge concerns energy and water policy.

A “supply side” environmentalist - for lack of a better term - would argue that the priority should be to achieve energy and water abundance. To do this, for example, they would advocate construction of nuclear powered desalinization plants, as well as pumping stations and aqueducts. They would advocate increased production of fresh water from seawater, and they would advocate distributing this water to restore every depleted aquifer on earth.

A “demand side” environmentalist, by contrast, would argue that conservation of energy and water is the only approach that could possibly make sense. They would argue that it isn’t possible to produce enough energy for everyone at current levels of consumption. They would fight for energy and water rationing, with punitive fines and even criminal penalties for overuse of these resources.

Read the whole article and express your opinions.

Comments

[George]

Well, that was certainly designed to elicit a specific response. It's great if the only choice we have is between shivering in the dark and no-holds-barred energy development. But those are not even remotely the only choices. This thing is intellectually dishonest.

[GreyFlcn]

I would agree that this is how the Right-wing loves to paint the false dichotomy of environmentalism.

Either
Doing less, with less.
Or doing more, with more.

When infact, true Greentech is about
Doing More, with Less.

[Thomas Pedersen]

I agree fully with the two previous comments.

Generally, I loathe such black-or-white discussions when the truth is always some shade of gray (or colour :-).

I dream of a future where Greentech allows us to do whatever we want without hurtig the environment that we depend on.

But is is also true that there is a lot of low-hanging, very ripe fruit to be picked in terms of energy savings. And positive spin-offs as well. For example:

Better insulation and variable speed air conditioning compressors would result in better in-door climate, due to less temperature variation and less noise and draught.

Flow controlled pumps lead to less valve noise.

It is my feeling that most energy saving measures have positive side effects like this.

[Jameel]

A really good demonstration of why the supply or demand side debate is a false dichotomy comes from thinking just a little bit about the economics.

When you make energy abundant and cheap, you increase demand for it until the price rises, and it seems scarce again.

When you implement stringent conservation, you decrease demand, which lowers the price so that energy appears abundant, and people stop conserving.

For the equilibrium to be stable, you can't insist that energy be cheap, either by building more and more generation capacity, or by chastising the public to conserve. The balance requires that energy users face the full price (including environmental harm) of their energy use, and that we have an energy system whose total use level isn't bankrupting the environment.

[jcwinnie]

I still am stuck on how one "dovetails fitfully", much less trying to recall any sweeping environmental legislation in recent history.

[JeffS]

My approach on the matter is thus, veessa.com. We are a fledgling company trying to make a difference in the world as well as the future. We would appreciate input, criticism is welcome.

[amazingdrx]

Hmmm, supply side? I smell reagan revolutionaries. Ewwwww.

[amazingdrx]

Anyone else have to try to post comments 4 or 5 times to get them to go through?

Hope this blog platform is free.

[Demesure]

The "supply side" environmentalists must have sought asylumn on Mars.
On Earth, I don't see them, just their "demande side" counterparts.

[brian hans]

Here is my approach.

1) beat the drum of pollution and toxins and waste and CO2...blablabla

2) build a better concept that average people can understand and buy into. And do it with an economic model of home made jobs.

By making aware of the evils of (insert coal or chromium or xenoestrogins in the water) AND by offering them a better solution that solve their pains (bioplastics, biodiesel and anaerobic digestion) whilst offering real world solutions (CH4 energy, electric cars and fertilizer) environmentalists can beat "them" at the game of life.

If you build it, they will come. We (the environmentalists) need to offer plausable solutions as well as harp on the evils.

So i suppose to answer the overall question, Im for talking and taxing the demand side but making sure the supply side is well thought out. Maybe another way to look at it, tree huggers need a job too...

[Energy Guru]

Interesting way of looking at things, but in real life the free market works and prioritizes efficiently between options available under both extremes. Force rarely ends in positive results, whether it is governmental or activists. No need to worry, no reason to carry a big stick... Economics will produce the right solutions at the appropriate times. For more discussion on the topic, see my blog.

Energy Guru
www.energy-guru.blogspot.com

[amazingdrx]

The so-called "free" market did not win WW 2.

This energy emergency comprised of climate disaster, perpetual oil war, and nuclear proliferation from nuclear power, is every bit as serious.

Corporations are squandering tax dollars, typified by corrupt Iraq war contracting, negating any effort to solve this looming disaster with a switch to renewable energy and conservation.

It is insurmountable without government leadership. Free markets did not build the liberty ships, the bombers, the jeeps, and the nuclear weapons that won WW 2. Companies were forced by the uS government to put the war effort ahead of profits.

That kind of leadership is sorely needed right now. Instead we have leaders that serve monopoly multinational energy interests.

[Betty Noris]

i am a wally because i am doing this s**t for my science coursework which is a very regretful situation to be in nenenenenenenenene

[propecia online]

hello friend excellent post about How Should We Approach Saving the Environment? thanks for sharing!!

[generic viagra]

hello friend My approach on the matter is thus, veessa.com.