It’s probably somewhat ironic to be writing this response to Senator Syvret’s speech some 36,000 feet up in the air in a plane somewhere between
I have at least assuaged some of my guilt by paying U$6.00 to an organisation called Trees of the Future (http://www.plant-trees.org/main.htm) that will go some way towards my journey being at least partially carbon neutral. Is this something we could offer to those who fly into our
That aside, what Senator Syvret had to say at the Chamber luncheon should be very seriously reflected upon by our society.
We are extremely fortunate to live in a temperate climate, with full employment and none of the uncertainties faced by many of our fellow human beings around the globe. That fortune though brings responsibilities. Responsibilities we too easily ignore when faced with the certainties of a strong economy and excellent public services.
It has always struck me as somewhat hypocritical in my industry (coffee) that we expect the countries from which we buy our products to be environmentally considerate when we blithely throw away tons of packaging material on a daily basis with sustainability being the last thing on our mind.
So when are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? If Senator Syvret is right Armageddon is just around the corner and we’re sleepwalking straight into it.
Surely it’s therefore about time
Energy security has to be a matter of huge strategic importance in a world already thinking past the days of cheap oil.
I’ve asked the question before but without answer, when will our planning authorities demand that all new builds have a rain water harvesting capability as a standard building requirement?
When will the use of solar panels also become part of a new build, or subsidies offered to encourage retro-fitting. When will the infrastructure be put in place by Government to encourage the use of electric vehicles?
Why aren’t businesses encouraged through grants to seek out more energy efficient methods of production?
There is so much that needs to be done and still we can barely organise the separation of household waste.
As Senator Syvret says “an entire paradigm shift is required” – not tomorrow or the day after, but today, or will it be a case of looking in our grand-children’s eyes and saying “if only…………..”?
3 comments:
Solar and other "renewable" energy sources will be incorporated as part of new builds as standard when it is economic to do so. At the moment these technologies are just not efficient enough for most people to use. For Government to insist upon their inclusion is for the Government to insist we waste our money. This is, clearly, counter-productive.
I'm not against micro-generation. I think it has some desireable benefits (such as resilience due its distributed nature) but until the technologies are there we shouldn't waste resources on it that could be better applied to other problems.
The same applies to water-harvesting. Currently collection and distribution networks enjoy economies of scale that make them worthwhile. Especially on an island like Jersey, what is the point of home harvesting? Wouldn't that just reduce the amount available to mains networks? I'm not sure what the supposed benefit is here, except to the people who supply and maintain the water-treatment equipment you would need.
Government isn't the answer here. Money spent as subsidies, or implementing new infrastructure is money that can't be used for something else - something possibly better or more useful. If a given technology is genuinely more efficient with resources (and that's the aim isn't it?) then it will be adopted without government help (i.e. without *our* hard-earned money being thrown at it) simply for the savings possible from those efficiencies.
Hi Charles
Surely if we simply take the approach that nothing happens because it is too expensive or too inefficient when does change happen? We wouldn't have flat screen tv's or any new technological innovation is that was the attitude of the developer. Surely if we attempt to change and learn from the error of our ways that's a good thing, we become more efficient by doing. Simply standing by and doing nothing is I believe not an option
David,
The cost of a technology is a signal: it gives us information about how much had to be consumed to create it. Take, for example, the Toyoto Prius. Sold as a green technology, it is nothing of the sort: when the costs of building it and disposing of it at the end of its life are factored, in its per-mile cost to the environment is greater than that of a Range Rover or Hummer. In other words it's actually making the situation worse, not better. If all the available technologies were like this (which they're not, but lets assume it for the moment) then not doing anything may be bad, but everything else is worse. Not doing anything in this situation would thus be the best option.
My main objection is against your calls for government-chosen and -enforced technologies.
Change in how we do things should occur where it is easiest for us to do it - where we can get the best savings (of resources) for the least cost. Government subsidies and infrastructure building programs are wasteful in this manner, because they divert money away from better options. For example, your subsidies may help a business make a small efficiency saving, but the tax levied to pay for it might be the difference that means a householder can't buy a newer (cleaner) car, or insulate their home.
Top-down solutions will not bring about change. Bottom-up solutions will, but only if we pay attention to the signals that prices give us. Developers know there will be market for more efficient goods and services, just as soon as they can compete with current methods. Some are prepared to pay a premium to be an early-adopter (which they do, for example, for the prestige of owning a flat-screen TV before their friends). But that cannot translate through to reducing our demands on the environment because efficiency is a tangible, real thing. Prestige is not.
Paying some of the price via the government (with all the extra costs *that* involves) doesn't change the basic fact that *more* resources are being consumed to get to the same end than are necessary.
Post a Comment