CARROLL: Conservation dreams

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

I just bought one of those old-fashioned reel mowers powered by human muscle. You couldn't find its carbon footprint with a microscope.

Add it to the very efficient furnace we put in last year and any day now, I suspect, my family will be eligible for some environmental commendation - or would be, anyway, if we'd just make the switch to those funny- looking compact fluorescent light bulbs.

When all is said and done, however, what would we have achieved, really, other than to reduce our Xcel bill a bit and trim our consumption of gasoline by a few gallons every summer?

In the global trajectory of greenhouse emissions, my conservation is meaningless. Yours is, too. What's more, even yours and mine together - even combined with the conservation of every American who takes similar action - is not significant, either.

This fact is profoundly upsetting to many green activists, who are likely to reject it out of hand. They've invested too much in a moralistic crusade aimed at changing lifestyles to turn back now.

Indeed, their overall approach to global warming sometimes seems lifted from the children's tale The Little Engine That Could, with the tactic of "I think I can" applied to conservation and technology alike.

Consider the reaction Wednesday to President Bush's call for the United States to halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. In a fairly typical response, the head of the Environmental Defense Fund, Fred Krupp, denounced Bush for "his assertions that the U.S. lacks the technology to make deep near-term cuts in emissions, and his concerns that effective climate action would cause economic harm."

But in fact the goal Krupp mentions - 70 percent less greenhouse emissions by 2050 - cannot be reached without either advances in technology or "economic harm," and to suggest otherwise is to insult Americans' intelligence. (Gov. Bill Ritter's Climate Action Plan, which seeks an 80 percent reduction in greenhouses gases by 2050, is more honest in admitting that new technology is critical to this quest.)

The yet bigger reason to doubt the power of individual conservation is that most of the world's inhabitants are still poor. They want electricity; they want mobility. And fulfilling their aspirations is going to boost greenhouse gases to a degree that utterly dwarfs any possible tempering of our own energy appetites.

Don't take my word for it. Read what two Colorado scholars - political science professor Roger A. Pielke Jr., of the University of Colorado, and climatologist Tom Wigley with the National Center for Atmospheric Research - have written in the April issue of Nature (along with author Christopher Green of McGill University). They suggest that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been unrealistic in its projections of future energy use, and in fact is already wrong about the current decade, in which "energy intensity" was supposed to decline.

Not only is the economic growth of the developing world boosting energy use, they note, "this process is likely to continue, not only in [China and India], but all over populous south Asia, and eventually Africa, until well beyond 2050."

Indeed, "it is likely that we have only just begun to experience the surge in global energy use associated with ongoing rapid development. . . . a surge that can only end with a transformation of global energy systems."

But that, in turn, is possible only with "enormous advances in energy technology."

In an interview with The New York Times, Pielke explained that "we may have set ourselves down the wrong path when we framed the challenge of mitigating greenhouse gases in terms of 'reducing emissions.' "

Perhaps you too would like an old-fashioned reel mower powered by human muscle. If so, by all means check one out. Just don't kid yourself that you'll be any greener than your neighbor.

If there are environmental heroes among us, they are the scientists and technicians who someday figure out how the world can produce much, much more affordable energy - which it is going to need - without adding to greenhouse emissions. In that drama, most of us are fated to be spectators.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

April 18, 2008

6:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

Umm....Hello....Nuclear power!! Everyone seems to think we need some magic technology to reduce emissions. It's not magic, it's fission, and it's been around for seventy years. Of course with people like the crazies in Vermont claiming (libel?) that the NRC, with it's government appointed commission is "a wholly owned subsidiary of the nuclear industry" the only fight is the one to convince the green morons that, just like everyone else in the world, they have to choose the lesser evil. The only problem is that environmentalists would rather dream of ideals than live in reality, and the only thing they know to do is oppose other peoples' ideas. They just plug away demanding that everyone else change, with no willingness to change themselves. All they are good for is deadlock on issues they don't understand, impeding progress, and writing laws that only make matters worse. We'd all be better off if they all drifted off in dingys to save the whales, and let those of us that know what we are doing try to save the world.
April 18, 2008

8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

you shouldn't vote either
April 18, 2008

8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

pak writes:

Well said. China has built over 150 coal fired plants since 2005. In 2006 and 2007 China added 186,000 MW of coal fired power, while the greens and Dems agonize over one plant in Kansas. Colorado needs 4900 MW of power by 2025, and it is not going to happen with intermittent, unreliable, expensive renewables that work only 33% of the time and discriminate against the poor who can't even pay their bills now! Holland is converting 10,000 MW of oil fired power to coal fired power. China is importing every ton of coal it can get it's hands on. The answer is coal and nuclear. If we don't want blackouts like S. Africa, we better start building plants yesterday!! We need leaders in this country to solve our energy crisis, not dreamers.
April 18, 2008

8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

You nailed it Vince. Seems like there should ne some sciense somewhere on how exactly you stop climate change. I believe I heard on PBS awhile back an expert claim that if the world stopped burning fossil fuel completely, the effects of the CO2 that's already in the atmosphere wouldn't reverse for at least 10 years. What this measn is that real estate in Alaska, Canada and Siberia should be really got investments.
April 18, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

I disagree that the individual contribution is meaningless. Anyone with a basic understanding of consumer behavior knows that sweeping market changes start with early adopters.

And I certainly disagree that if every American conserved, that would also be a meaningless contribution. For one thing, we produce a huge percentage of the world's pollution, so there is no way that transforming our energy policies wouldn't have a significant impact.

Besides, technology and public policy is, to a large degree, driven by demand from the public. Yet Mr. Carroll's rather glum assertion that our individual behavior is insignificant and taken collectively, can have no impact on the world around us, seems to imply otherwise. He appears to be saying that at the end of the day, we private citizens are utterly powerless. And that our behavior, our desires, our needs are all dependent on the whims of a handful of people who are smarter and more productive than we are. I strongly disagree with such a hopeless message.

As for rising energy demands around the world, I see alternative energy companies popping up everywhere, and yes, in China too. In fact, the commercial solar market in China is really taking off.

Yes, technology innovators and scientists are environmental heroes - and so are the rest of us by creating the demand for and using the technologies they produce.
April 18, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

VVVV: "Umm....Hello....Nuclear power!! Everyone seems to think we need some magic technology to reduce emissions. It's not magic, it's fission, and it's been around for seventy years."

Personally, I consider this the energy policy of last resort for two reasons. Number one, it's still dependent on a finite resource, uranium. Once we get down to the wire on that resource, we'll see wars starting all over again as everyone fights for their share of it. Second, the potential for devastating accidents - or deliberate ones - is significant.

Those are my reservations about nuclear energy, anyway.
April 18, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Vincent,

Whatever your reasoning for buying a manual powered reel mower or energy efficient furnace, its all good. I disagree however that conservation makes no difference. Were you to replace your incandescent bulbs with CFLS, buy a car that gets 35 or more miles to the gallon and perhaps better insulate your house, you might cut your energy consumption by more than 25%.

If as you proposed, everybody in this country were to conserve energy at that level it would be very significant. We currently use 11 million barrels of oil a day in this country. Shaving 25% off of that could save nearly 3 million barrels a day. All of this could be accomplished with today's technology. Tomorrow's technology will bring such things as cars that get 70-100 miles per gallon, less wasteful appliances and better designed buildings.

I agree that scientists will be the environmental heroes of tomorrow, but conservationists have the capability and the will to be the environmental heroes of today.

Thanks for doing your part Vince, but now that you have started, by all means, keep on going!
April 18, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

"Anyone with a basic understanding of consumer behavior knows that sweeping market changes start with early adopters."

Right -- and you probably bought the first Pet Rock, BetaMax and the first HD-DVD, too, right?

No -- early adopters do not set change in place for the market. They fall prey to the early Marketing campaigns. They waste their time and money on inferior products (and inferior ideas; re: Pet Rocks) and encourage others to do the same. Then they complain that people didn't understand that want they bought was really better than the competition (re: BetaMax).

The winners wait for the dust to settle, the science to emerge, and the prices to fall. THEN they buy ... and buy ... and buy. THEY set the direction for the "sweeping changes in the marketplace."
April 18, 2008

4:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

stuckiniowa writes:

mytwosense -- first generation nuclear power is dependent on Uranium However - after the fission process- you are left with Plutonium - which contains much more energy potential than uranium. Sure - recovered Plutonium is a toxic substance, so additional protections are required. This recovered plutonium is currently being used in both France and Japan.
April 18, 2008

5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

P_Denver, sure, there are folks out there who will buy any new product just so they can be the "first" to do so, but I'm not talking about those people.

I'm talking about those who are open-minded and curious enough to go against the status quo when they see the potential of value in a new idea, technology, product, and try it out for themselves.

Instead of waiting for the status quo to give them the green light to do so.

Some interesting reading about early adopters and their influence in new market ideas, if you have a few spare minutes:

http://www2.acnielsen.com/pubs/2004_q...

http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata99.htm

stuckiniowa, thanks for the information. You've piqued my interest to learn more.
April 19, 2008

7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sweetpickle writes:

Reduce taxes now, let the future worry about itself.
April 20, 2008

6:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

arby writes:

I have to agree with Vince. While it's good to do your part you aren't going to make much difference. I lived in China from 1993 to 1996. It is the most polluted place I've ever been. You can actually taste the air. It has a metallic taste. They have no emission controls on cars or anything else. In winter everybody has little charcoal burners they run because there is no central heat in the apartment buildings. It's a cottage industry to manufacture the charcoal. We were supposed to stay 2 more years but my wife got a lung infection and she was told the only way to cure it was to get out of the environment. She got home went to National Jewish and they tested her. The Dr. said you've been to China. She's OK now. Your push mower isn't going to fight this kind of pollution. But it's good exercise.
April 20, 2008

4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Gene, that was a latino marketing & media site, but I didn't really check out the home page until I saw your post. I can see what you mean! stuckiniowa probably took one look at all the links to chavez articles and blew a gasket right there.

oops.
April 20, 2008

7:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Hey Gene,

The difference between now and 2 months ago? Pretty good eh?

Pinus contorta neat at 5:00 tomorrow?
April 21, 2008

6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gene,

You have such discriminating taste! I can only taste down to the species level. You can gp all the way to variety. The extra cost is wasted on me buddy, but latifolia it is!

mytwosense would be a good Coke drinking companion.
April 21, 2008

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Actually Gene,

My stock Prius would beat the Tundra off the mark by using its electric motor for acceleration from a dead stop. It would then keep it close with superior handling. Finally the Prius would beat the Tundra handily when the Tundra runs out of gas! It just wouldn't be a fair contest:>).
April 21, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Gene, what are your feelings about RC? That was my cola of choice as a kid. Do they even still make the stuff?
April 21, 2008

5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gene,

Thank you, and a very happy Earth Day to you as well!
April 21, 2008

7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

arby writes:

I've got an 8.1 Silverado that goes like hell and can pull a mountain. But I only drive it on "blue" days as I don't want to contribute to pollution. It doesn't get the best mileage but Chevrolet had the foresight to put in an extra large tank. If your electric/gas cars quit on you I'll put it my bed and take it to the dump for free.
April 21, 2008

7:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

arby writes:

Gene
Pop it was and still is. If you say soda you are exposing yourself as a transplant. I don't think RC is around anymore. There's a new pop out you might like. It's "A&W Float" pretty good, tastes like a root beer float that you used to get at the A&W Drive In. There I'm dating myself.
April 24, 2008

5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

TroyJGrice writes:

Where is all the global warming you bark-humpers keep squawking about? There has been NO GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1998! 10 years- no warming despite an exponential acceleration of CO2 emmissions during that time.

The Malthusian doomsday has been suspended indefinitely.

In celebration, I'm going to hop into my V8 F150, cruise 85 mph over to Home Depot, buy some incandescent lightbulbs and carry them home in a plastic bag.
April 24, 2008

11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

arby writes:

Troy
You must live in the country to be able to get up to 85 MPH. My truck will do it in less than a quarter except these Prius things are always in the way.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

CARROLL: Conservation dreams

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs