PBS’s Ask This Old House Recommends Energy Efficiency – But Misses the #1 Reason To Care About It
I like to watch the PBS show “Ask This Old House” on Saturday mornings. I’m so impressed with the incredible level of professionalism and the cleverness of the solutions these folks come up with.
Whenever it’s possible to mention energy efficiency or solar energy, the plumbing and heating guy, Richard Trethewey (pictured on left), normally dives right in. He does a great job explaining solar thermal hot water heating, solar photovoltaics, and all manner of solutions that reduce the waste of energy. But I’m amused that the show is very careful not to imply that there are ethical implications here, only that homeowners can reduce their electricity bills. Is environmentalism some sort of taboo subject?
It’s sad that we feel inhibited about coming out and saying: “Hey, fellow Earthlings: we have a problem here. Our approach to using energy is not sustainable. It’s ruining our planet, and we all share a collective responsibility to do something about it.” Is being aware of the decay of our environment and having a conscience really such a dangerous thing to admit? Ask This Old House treats this is as if they were gay people coming out of the closet in the 1950s, an era in which very few people made the admission, and those few did so at their peril.
Here’s a note to Richard and the show’s producers: It’s actually a good thing to care about the world around you, and it’s totally OK to admit it.
I think that you are getting way too sectarian with your brand of environmentalism. I look at your approach as being like religionists of various faiths who want to do good for their neighbors but get bogged down over uncompromisable tenants of their particular sects.
The big picture for the environment is to reduce, reuse and recycle. If you stray very far from that path you are going to lose a lot of good hearted folks who don’t bow down to precisely the same alter that you do.
The really sad thing is that energy improvements to existing buildings is the investment with the greatest return for carbon footprint reduction. Our buildings are notoriously leaky and under insulated. The upside is improved health and productivity of the people who live or work in the buildings.
Why can’t we get it through to the minds of rank and file Americans that environmental investment pays for itself many times over and gets money into the economy and makes everyone healthier .
Reading that you’re “amused”, Craig, doesn’t fit the model of significant concern and varied enthusiasms you have portrayed in all the time I’ve been following your pursuit of sustainable progress.
I believe you can find evidence that the Koch Brothers have infiltrated PBS with their “philanthropy”. I suggest you and/or others check it out,
Continue your good work.
I’m very glad–and flattered–that you read closely enough to catch that, Jim. I actually sent the wrong version of this; I meant to send: http://2greenenergy.com/2014/09/27/pbs-energy-efficiency/
Don’t be surprised at all Craig. Here is an excerpt from PandoDaily, who (among others) has reported on Forecast the Facts’ campaign to oust David Koch from the PBS station WGBH’s board:
“…The campaign, sponsored by the environmental group Forecast the Facts, aims to remove one of the most influential and politically active fossil fuel magnates from the board of the PBS station that provides science-related programming to outlets across the US.
The campaign’s target is David Koch, who serves on the board and the Science Visiting Council of Boston’s WGBH. These are particularly powerful posts for the conservative financier — one of the infamous Koch brothers — because, like the Arnold-infiltrated WNET in New York, the Boston station produces many of the national PBS network’s programming. In fact, according to its own website, WGBH is “PBS’s single largest producer of Web and TV content.” That includes PBS’s iconic science show, NOVA….”
Unable to stand the glare of the activist spotlight on him and WBGH, Mr. Koch quietly resigned in May of this year, but you have to know that his (and that of his cronies) financial influence continues to steer the programming of PBS.
Unfortunately, PBS sold out to the dark side. It’s disgusting.
A similar phenomenon is observed in NPR.
As if this publicly funded TV show is not enough to fall short – I recommend you go further and check out this country’s biggest builders and developers. I have been working for over a year now to get them interested in sustainable designs for housing with no luck at all. It seems the housing model for this country is as deaf dumb as the PBS channel is. While theyall pay lip service to LEEDS and PASSIVE housing models they fall short in providing new designs for today’s market. I welcome suggestions on how to wake them up?
OK several people have brought up the sponsor issue already so I will leave that alone. I have written them about the drain water heat exchanger with no success or even response. I would think that cutting energy use for heating water by at least 30% would be a simple no brainer. I guess I will just keep emailing.
Maybe they are produced by WGBH Boston which gets money from the Koch brothers and don’t want to loose their big money. Fossil fuel companies dig millions of dollars of cheap fuel out of the planet and then use the planet as a toxic waste dump. Politicians and non profits want their money…..
They did a good show about sealing leaky ductwork with the Aeroseal machine, which we use.
Really, folks. There just might be a simpler explanation. Despite being (in part) publicly funded, instead of entirely from advertising, the folks who work on that show want it to remain popular, so that they will continue to get paid to make it, and so that their “proud sponsors” will continue to foot the production bills and provide equipment.
As it is, their audience demographic runs the spectrum from “hemp-belted tree-hugger” to “NASCAR-lovin’ gool ‘ol’ boy.” That very demographic variety keeps the show on the air, and keeps their “proud sponsors” paying the bills.
By keeping their emphasis on saving $, they keep their entire audience watching. If they start banging the environmental drum, they stand to lose a good chunk of their audience, and sponsors, and paychecks.
Why should they take that risk? There is zero upside for them in it.
I wouldn’t call it zero upside, because it inspired me to tell my subscriber base that, IMO, they’re misbehaving; taking that risk would have prevented that. But in the main you’re correct; my subscriber base is a tiny fraction of their viewer base.
According to StateOfTheMedia,org, “The PBS NewsHour’s audience is older and more educated than viewers of the network news programs and the general population.
“The lion’s share (72%) of the NewsHour’s audience, is 55 years or older. In addition, 21% are age 25 to 54.
“Fully 55% of NewsHour viewers hold at least a college degree, compared to 27% of the general population. According to the most recent survey data by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 23% of network evening news viewers and 28% of cable news viewers hold at least a college degree.
“NewsHour viewers, on average, are about as affluent as the general population. About 42% of NewsHour viewers made $75,000 or more, equaling the percentage for Americans generally. In 2008, 24% of nightly news viewers and 19% for cable news had household incomes of $75,000 or more.”
Further reading:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-our-sponsor
http://mediaobservatory.net/radar/media-donations-political-parties-and-ownership-structures-potential-source-corruption
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/carl-deal-tia-lessin-directors-citizen-koch
It’s not just the ‘environmental’ impact, but the economic impact as well. Solar Thermal (air & water), Daylighting and PV (or PV/Thermal) can be added onto a built structure or planned in from the start for maximum effect. “This Old House” deals with existing, residential and has to remain true to their audience. Still, they do a good job.