To really save the planet, stop going green

[Michael]

To really save the planet, stop going green

As President Obama heads to Copenhagen next week for global warming talks, there's one simple step Americans back home can take to help out: Stop "going green." Just stop it. No more compact fluorescent light bulbs. No more green wedding planning. No more organic toothpicks for holiday hors d'oeuvres.

December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change. The country's last real moral and social revolution was set in motion by the civil rights movement. And in the 1960s, civil rights activists didn't ask bigoted Southern governors and sheriffs to consider "10 Ways to Go Integrated" at their convenience.

Green gestures we have in abundance in America. Green political action, not so much. And the gestures ("Look honey, another Vanity Fair Green Issue!") lure us into believing that broad change is happening when the data shows that it isn't. Despite all our talk about washing clothes in cold water, we aren't making much of a difference.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402605.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

This is an idea I raised quite a while ago. I was getting annoyed by all the publicity campaigns to get householders to use less water and electricity.

I looked up the data and found that (in Canada) householders account for less than 10% of water consumption.

And that meant that all the household water conservation in the world wasn't going to dent Canada's overall water consumption. All it was going to do was annoy people and pretend that they were doing something to save the environment.

No, public campaigns to save water were in reality all about saving private corporation's rights to waste and pollute water as much as they always have by tricking the public into thinking that their little sacrifices were going to save the environment (while private manufacturers successfully lobbied to get yet another volume discount on water - meaning the more wasteful with water they were, the cheaper it was for them).

Fact is, if you are concerned about the environment, getting one environment saving law passed is worth all the water-saving, heat-saving and recycling of millions of people. The comparison isn't even close.

Voluntary householder efforts to reduce water, electricity or to increase recycling produces effects that are essentially statistically insignificant.

None of these policies are duplicated on the corporate/manufacturing side where the vast majority of the national consumption occurs. Nothing but actual laws and penalties will get people to address these issues as these wasteful habits of industry are quite profitable.

[Lily]

These are the water use stats from 2005, the latest I could find from the USGS:


About 410,000 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of water was withdrawn for use in the United States during 2005. About 80 percent of the total (328,000 Mgal/d) withdrawal was from surface water, and about 82 percent of the surface water withdrawn was freshwater. The remaining 20 percent (82,600 Mgal/d) was withdrawn from groundwater, of which about 96 percent was freshwater. If withdrawals for thermoelectric power in 2005 are excluded, withdrawals were 210,000 Mgal/d, of which 129,000 Mgal/d (62 percent) was supplied by surface water and 80,700 Mgal/d (38 percent) was supplied by groundwater.

Water withdrawals in four States — California, Texas, Idaho, and Florida — accounted for more than one-fourth of all fresh and saline water withdrawn in the United States in 2005. More than half (53 percent) of the total withdrawals of 45,700 Mgal/d in California were for irrigation, and 28 percent were for thermoelectric power. Most of the withdrawals in Texas (26,700 Mgal/d) were for thermoelectric power (43 percent) and irrigation (29 percent). Irrigation accounted for 85 percent of the 19,500 Mgal/d of water withdrawn in Idaho, and thermoelectric power accounted for 66 percent of the 18,300 Mgal/d withdrawn in Florida.


Source (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3098/)

[Lily]

Here's a report developed in 2007 for the president, entitled "A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States." Page 10 provides a graphic representation of water use in the U.S.

http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/NSTC/Fed%20ST%20Strategy%20for%20Water%209-07%20FINAL.pdf

[Michael]

These are the water use stats from 2005, the latest I could find from the USGS:

Here's a report developed in 2007 for the president, entitled "A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States." Page 10 provides a graphic representation of water use in the U.S.

I'm curious about your point here. :ummm:

Data you are posting seems to confirm my offhand comment about householder water consumption being a small drop in the bucket. :shrug:

Admittedly, I'm in Canada so no issue is less relevant to me than water shortages - Canada possesses roughly 1/3 of the entire planet's freshwater supply so the issue just doesn't really exist up here at all. Conserving water in households is just a 'feel good' measure that has no substantial environmental significance.

My offhand comment about household water conservation was thus all about perspectives on actual waste since all such campaigns always target householders when industry (or in the case of water, agriculture) consumes the lion's share of the commodity and they have institutional incentives for increasing consumption and waste.

Household water consumption is not the topic of the OP - it was an illustrative example I offered.

[Lily]

I'm curious about your point here. :ummm:

Data you are posting seems to confirm my offhand comment about householder water consumption being a small drop in the bucket. :shrug:



Of course it is. I just wondered what industries were consuming the majority of the water supply. Now, I know. It's agriculture and power generation. However, we consume the products of both and we consume in a wasteful manner, wouldn't you agree? How much does our demand for cheap food and cheap electricity push the massive water consumption of these two industires? Are we to blame or does the blame fall on the industries?

[Michael]

Of course it is. I just wondered what industries were consuming the majority of the water supply. Now, I know. It's agriculture and power generation. However, we consume the products of both and we consume in a wasteful manner, wouldn't you agree? How much does our demand for cheap food and cheap electricity push the massive water consumption of these two industires? Are we to blame or does the blame fall on the industries?

I think the point of the OP is to point out that 100 million little changes in consumer behavior won't actually solve the environmental problem. For that, we need big legislative changes, not incremental individual ones. But of course, every discussion about environmental changes seems to begin and end with household behavior (and ignores those who consume the vast majority).

And yes, you are correct that all that power generation and agricultural consumption of energy ultimately is consumed by households. But no amount of changing lightbulbs or using less water in households is going to make a signficant impact in total consumption.

For big reductions in total consumption of water or energy, industry and agriculture are where its at. Without addressing these industries, we are pissing against the wind with our energy saving lightbulbs and our water efficient toilets.

For example, agriculture is a massive consumer of water. This is partly a function of growing lots of food, but it is also a function of maximizing profit. It is quite likely that our agricultural industry could produce the same amount of food with less water, but that might entail less profits. Likewise with power-generation - it is indeed highly wasteful process - often as much as a quarter of all such energy is just wasted (since it is produced in the middle of the night when no one consumes it). Timeshifting electricity consumption would have a ten times larger impact on our electrical consumption than all the energy-saving appliances added together.

That's the real point I think. All the focus on individual households misses the mark completely and risks fostering a "we're doing all we can" type conclusion that is totally unwarrented. Indeed, to put the onus for environmentalism upon households is to give industry and agriculture (the really heavy consumers and polluters) a free pass. That's just the way they like it, but this contributes to our continuing environmental problems and won't resolve them. Individual acts will not be sufficient.

[Americano]

I think the point of the OP is to point out that 100 million little changes in consumer behavior won't actually solve the environmental problem. For that, we need big legislative changes, not incremental individual ones. But of course, every discussion about environmental changes seems to begin and end with household behavior (and ignores those who consume the vast majority).

And yes, you are correct that all that power generation and agricultural consumption of energy ultimately is consumed by households. But no amount of changing lightbulbs or using less water in households is going to make a signficant impact in total consumption.

For big reductions in total consumption of water or energy, industry and agriculture are where its at. Without addressing these industries, we are pissing against the wind with our energy saving lightbulbs and our water efficient toilets.

For example, agriculture is a massive consumer of water. This is partly a function of growing lots of food, but it is also a function of maximizing profit. It is quite likely that our agricultural industry could produce the same amount of food with less water, but that might entail less profits.

Likewise with power-generation - it is indeed highly wasteful process - often as much as a quarter of all such energy is just wasted (since it is produced in the middle of the night when no one consumes it). Timeshifting electricity consumption would have a ten times larger impact on our electrical consumption than all the energy-saving appliances added together.

That's the real point I think. All the focus on individual households misses the mark completely and risks fostering a "we're doing all we can" type conclusion that is totally unwarrented. Indeed, to put the onus for environmentalism upon households is to give industry and agriculture (the really heavy consumers and polluters) a free pass. That's just the way they like it, but this contributes to our continuing environmental problems and won't resolve them. Individual acts will not be sufficient.

No, individual acts won't resolve water resource consumption issues. Any reduction in consumption by the major consumers, agriculture and industry, will require advanced infrastructure that would demand massive capital investment. There's no way that level of capital is going to become available until no cost other than delivery resources such as water run their course.

A 500-year drought and subsequent water rights futures market could change the entire picture.

[Michael]

No, individual acts won't resolve water resource consumption issues. Any reduction in consumption by the major consumers, agriculture and industry, will require advanced infrastructure that would demand massive capital investment. There's no way that level of capital is going to become available until no cost other than delivery resources such as water run their course.

A 500-year drought and subsequent water rights futures market could change the entire picture.

So would government policy/regulations on the industrial use of water, electricity and pollution.

Our traditional political consensus is that industry is allowed to maximize their waste in order to maximize their profits (and are encouraged to do this with regulations, subsidies and tax-laws). So long as our political consensus consistently supports this policy, our environmental & resource problems are only going to get worse.

As I noted above, I consider the focus on householder consumption to be a propaganda game. The goal appears to be to get the consumers to believe they are addressing the problem themselves (with their energy efficient lightbulbs, water-saving toilets & recycled garbage), that way there is less political pressure for the government to truly address the real problem of industrial/agricultural consumption (that is so massively profitable and accounts for the vast majority of actual consumption, waste and pollution in our society).

[Americano]

So would government policy/regulations on the industrial use of water, electricity and pollution.

We both know that's not going to happen with industrial users of water owning the government.

Our traditional political consensus is that industry is allowed to maximize their waste in order to maximize their profits (and are encouraged to do this with regulations, subsidies and tax-laws). So long as our political consensus consistently supports this policy, our environmental & resource problems are only going to get worse.

As I noted above, I consider the focus on householder consumption to be a propaganda game. The goal appears to be to get the consumers to believe they are addressing the problem themselves (with their energy efficient lightbulbs, water-saving toilets & recycled garbage), that way there is less political pressure for the government to truly address the real problem of industrial/agricultural consumption (that is so massively profitable and accounts for the vast majority of actual consumption, waste and pollution in our society).

[Greendruid]

So would government policy/regulations on the industrial use of water, electricity and pollution.

Our traditional political consensus is that industry is allowed to maximize their waste in order to maximize their profits (and are encouraged to do this with regulations, subsidies and tax-laws). So long as our political consensus consistently supports this policy, our environmental & resource problems are only going to get worse.

As I noted above, I consider the focus on householder consumption to be a propaganda game. The goal appears to be to get the consumers to believe they are addressing the problem themselves (with their energy efficient lightbulbs, water-saving toilets & recycled garbage), that way there is less political pressure for the government to truly address the real problem of industrial/agricultural consumption (that is so massively profitable and accounts for the vast majority of actual consumption, waste and pollution in our society).

Unfortunately, although consumer adjustments at the household level are a drop in the ocean, it is still good practice to be thrifty with water and electricity, recycle and compost. Here's why: there is a larger behavioural component to all of this at the cultural level and if industrial-level wastage continues at this pace, it's going to eventually sit in a bad place for an upcoming generation who were raised to do things otherwise. We cannot expect the Canadian government, as an example, to kill off its biggest industries in the name of saving the planet. Saving the planet offers no tangible returns or even monetary incentives in the short-term. We have to bring the level of awareness up to a cultural level and the only way I can see doing this is from the grassroots. So no, the average household isn't going to save the planet and green-washing anything that happens at that level is indeed a propaganda game. But, I think that raising consciousness about this is important nonetheless and I don't think that component can be implemented at the industrial or governmental levels.

[Donkey]

Unfortunately, although consumer adjustments at the household level are a drop in the ocean, it is still good practice to be thrifty with water and electricity, recycle and compost. Here's why: there is a larger behavioural component to all of this at the cultural level and if industrial-level wastage continues at this pace, it's going to eventually sit in a bad place for an upcoming generation who were raised to do things otherwise. We cannot expect the Canadian government, as an example, to kill off its biggest industries in the name of saving the planet. Saving the planet offers no tangible returns or even monetary incentives in the short-term. We have to bring the level of awareness up to a cultural level and the only way I can see doing this is from the grassroots. So no, the average household isn't going to save the planet and green-washing anything that happens at that level is indeed a propaganda game. But, I think that raising consciousness about this is important nonetheless and I don't think that component can be implemented at the industrial or governmental levels.I definitely agree with this. Not to mention the fact that when I use less electricity or water, more money stays in my bank account.

[Michael]

I recognize the point you guys are making. Yes individual behavior is important and needs to change. But if all the focus is on that (which it is), nothing is going to change (and nothing has changed - we are still increasing the rate at which we are despoiling the planet after five years of talking about it and focusing entirely on consumer/household behavior).

The key point is that for effective change to occur, heavy pressure has to be brought to bear against the government. That's the key point.

And thus, the most effective way for individuals to address the issue is to engage their representatives to push for necessary legislation.

But all our efforts are apparently devoted to 'public awareness campaigns' to get people to change their lightbulbs.

The public has a limited attention span. Using all that attention up with lightbulbs and efficient toilets uses up all available public attention on the issue. You'd think Exxon was funding these campaigns the way they serve the political interests of Exxon so completely.

[Donkey]

Ah. I misunderstood your initial point a bit.

[Greendruid]

I recognize the point you guys are making. Yes individual behavior is important and needs to change. But if all the focus is on that (which it is), nothing is going to change (and nothing has changed - we are still increasing the rate at which we are despoiling the planet after five years of talking about it and focusing entirely on consumer/household behavior).

The key point is that for effective change to occur, heavy pressure has to be brought to bear against the government. That's the key point.

And thus, the most effective way for individuals to address the issue is to engage their representatives to push for necessary legislation.

But all our efforts are apparently devoted to 'public awareness campaigns' to get people to change their lightbulbs.

The public has a limited attention span. Using all that attention up with lightbulbs and efficient toilets uses up all available public attention on the issue. You'd think Exxon was funding these campaigns the way they serve the political interests of Exxon so completely.

I think we agree on the end but perhaps disagree on the means to it. I think that in order for government to have pressure brought to bear against it we need to have the general public do that. Interest groups are too easily dismissed as "fringe elements". Individuals are too powerless despite their fame (David Suzuki comes to mind). But each working their part to raise awareness of the general needs to have government change things will build. This will take time and is unlikely to happen soon enough to have the impact needed to stop some of the bad things from happening to our planet. I highly recommend The Archdruid Report (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/) again this week on this issue. I am simultaneously in agreement with his dire predictions about energy and the competing need to raise awareness, even of the "vanilla flavour" that addresses greening the family home.

[Michael]

I think we agree on the end but perhaps disagree on the means to it. I think that in order for government to have pressure brought to bear against it we need to have the general public do that. Interest groups are too easily dismissed as "fringe elements". Individuals are too powerless despite their fame (David Suzuki comes to mind). But each working their part to raise awareness of the general needs to have government change things will build. This will take time and is unlikely to happen soon enough to have the impact needed to stop some of the bad things from happening to our planet. I highly recommend The Archdruid Report (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/) again this week on this issue. I am simultaneously in agreement with his dire predictions about energy and the competing need to raise awareness, even of the "vanilla flavour" that addresses greening the family home.

This is all well and fine, but the bottom line is that you are essentially counselling the "raising of public consciousness" for two different issues similtaneously. Given pubic apathy at the best of times, this strikes me as a foolish strategy.

1. Consumers must be more responsible and waste less (i.e. lightbulbs and water-efficient toilets and caulking of houses).

2. Citizens must pressure the government to enact major legislation to address the fact that 75% of all energy consumption, water consumption and pollution production is done by industry and agriculture.

I fear that there just isn't enough public policy oxygen to supply both campaigns similtaneously. We need to "pick one" and I fear we've already chosen the industry-agricultural preferred route (which is why we are still increasing the rate of our environmental degradation). All the lightbulbs and efficient toilets in the world isn't going to change the overall numbers - heck, its not even going to dent the meta-numbers that are so critically important here.

Thus, I predict "zero" progress on the overall issue so long as public focus is entirely aimed at lightbulbs, toilets and curb-side recycling programs. These are valid goals, but they are sucking valuable political air from the real measures that are needed to address the issue.

[Lily]

I'm not sure how one could rally large groups of people around the idea of going after agribusiness and thermoelectric companies in this fight. Generally, people don't get riled up enough to take action unless something effects them directly. As Donkey stated, using less water is pretty much a no-brainer because it leaves more money in his pocket.

I think people will pay lip service to stopping big corporations from wasting water, but will they actually do anything? I'm not too sure. Maybe if a guy from the big agrifarm down the road was caught syphoning off water from my backyard well and I suddenly couldn't take a shower...

[Michael]

I'm not sure how one could rally large groups of people around the idea of going after agribusiness and thermoelectric companies in this fight. Generally, people don't get riled up enough to take action unless something effects them directly. As Donkey stated, using less water is pretty much a no-brainer because it leaves more money in his pocket.
I don't disagree at all. This is very true.


I think people will pay lip service to stopping big corporations from wasting water, but will they actually do anything? I'm not too sure. Maybe if a guy from the big agrifarm down the road was caught syphoning off water from my backyard well and I suddenly couldn't take a shower...
That's what is presently happening in the Southwest. The Rio Grande is no more. Sucked dry upstream for tax-subsidized agricultural profits. All legal like.

Btw, I've seen at least two major public water deals reported lately that involve large industry getting an even better deal than before on bulk water purchase (the more they use, the cheaper the price!). It would take a million efficient toilets to make up for the water-waste at some industrial or agricultural operations in a single day.

[Greendruid]

That's what is presently happening in the Southwest. The Rio Grande is no more. Sucked dry upstream for tax-subsidized agricultural profits. All legal like.

Btw, I've seen at least two major public water deals reported lately that involve large industry getting an even better deal than before on bulk water purchase (the more they use, the cheaper the price!). It would take a million efficient toilets to make up for the water-waste at some industrial or agricultural operations in a single day.

That's not quite true about the Rio - it is there still but here's what happens from our perspective when we lived in Las Cruces, NM in 2005. In the summer it flows into Elephant Butte - it's last stop in a chain of reservoirs before Mexico - and collects there. The run-off fills the river to its banks in the summer all around Las Cruces and I don't know if all of that makes it to Mexico or not. The farmers (many of whom are growing a flood-crop BTW, pecans) have an allotment based on their needs and no doubt their revenues. After summer, the state seals up the dam and the Rio is dry. The water in the dam is metered out to farmers and the city based on need. Mexico presumably gets nothing out of this and that probably pisses them off a great deal. In my 14 months living there I never heard a peep about it in the media. Just wanted to clarify the ridiculousness of the practices down there. The pecan crops were the kicker for me - WTF?

[Americano]

The Colorado River is another prime example of US appetites for surface water. It ends up in Mexico as a trickle of crap due to US dams and diversion for row crop (flooding) irrigation.

That's now in the process of change. Vegetable and produce farmers in Southern California's Imperial Valley area are relocating their operations to countries where lower labor and water costs not only absorb the additional transportation costs but provide enhanced operating margin.

That water is now being directed to former desert of Southern California high population density areas to supply potable water for industry and bottled water for the citizenry. Southern California has almost as many automated car washes as it does fast food establishments.