When It Comes to Energy and the Environment, It’s Either/Or
I’m proud to say that 2GreenEnergy has become a home to those with a wide range of interests. Back in 2009 when we kicked this off, it was largely a repository for information on the technological and economic issues that make renewable energy a good (or bad) investment—and we actually haven’t done too bad a job at that. We’ve had lots of business clients in one form or another, set up a few deals between cleantech investors and entrepreneurs, arranged business contacts for hundreds of people in dozens of different countries looking for jobs or trying to establish communication with other people in the cleantech field, assisted countless young people with scholastic assignments (from fourth grade homework papers to master’s theses), and helped nine different interns to hone their understanding of the subject.
Over the intervening years, however, 2GreenEnergy has spread its wings a bit and has become a place for those wanting to debate the political issues surrounding the subject of the sustainability of our civilization. And, as is with the case with all debates, it sports two diametrically opposed viewpoints. The whole thing turns on a single question: do you believe a) that an evolutionary, business-as-usual approach to the environment is acceptable at this point, or b) that such a position will result in a catastrophic amount of suffering for a huge number of people, and that this pushes you past your ethical limits? It’s really not a subject on which you can be sitting on the proverbial fence.
Personally, I’m in the latter camp, only because that’s what our scientists are telling us, and without too much equivocation. As a consequence, I believe that we (all of us) share a collective responsibility to bring about a mid-course correction to our approach to the environment, and to do so while there is still time to arrest the spread of the disease we’ve caused.
If you’re not with me and the scientists, and you don’t believe understand or care about the huge problem barreling down the tracks at us 100 miles per hour, you are either anti-science or coldly indifferent to what’s in store for humankind. Either way, sorry, it’s hard for me to really embrace you as a person.
Now this, of course, is the very stuff that infuriates the bejeepers out of the moderates. I can just hear the comments pouring in. Oh, you’re alienating the oil companies! You’re blowing your chance to reach the conservatives and the broader audience!
The problem with that argument: I already know there are people who couldn’t care less about climate change, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, etc.–but I honestly don’t worry myself about turning off those who lack all concern for the fate of our civilization.
My hero in this regard: Socrates. Did he care who engaged with him and who didn’t? Hardly; he was totally fine with people who would not listen to him–and there were plenty of them. My fondest hope is that I have just the slightest bit of Socrates in me.
Craig,
Let me be the first to congratulate you on the great job you have accomplished, with not only this forum, but helping and inspiring so many to become interested in clean technology. This is truly the coal face of environmentalism.
I’m not sure you’ve really thought through the wisdom of selecting Socrates as your role model ?
Socrates believed that the institution of slavery was natural and just. His explanation for the moral justification of slavery is recorded thus: “enslavement is considered a just or an unjust act according as to whether the victims are friends or enemies”.
In fact Socrates was able to live and support his family, on the hard work of slaves labouring on his family farm. ( and his occasional profits from slaves trading) .
I also doubt whether oil companies give a damn about whether you like them or not. All they want is for you to buy their products,… which you do.
In defense of the “moderates” whom you seem to hold in such disdain, what do you accomplish by deliberating alienating the very people needed to accomplish any real progress ?
What is the point of loud agitation for the impossible, while refusing to support the possible ?
One of the most impressive speeches I ever heard from a politician, was made by the late E.Gough Whitlam. Whitlam is a controversial figure in Australian history, but for all his faults(and he had many) he’s remembered by the left as a great hero.
Upon assuming leadership of a demoralized Labour Party defeated in every election for 18 years, deeply divided over ideological and doctrinaire issues, and dominated by deeply unpopular trade unions, he knew his moderate, modern policies would prove unpopular with old class-warfare warrior delagates.
In a bid to carry the party rank and file to accept new policies, with a chance of winning “moderate”, centre voters, he addressed the following:
“I want you to know what I’m for, not what I’m against. What I’ll do, not what I’ll undo or what I’ll resist.”
” To gain government, an opposition must look and sound like look and sound like a responsible alternative government. The idea that defeat is acceptable because it equates with ideological purity, and the proof of that purity is how few still adhere to the principles of purity, are mistaken. Certainly, speech to the the impotent can afford to be pure. But it’s a purity of arrogance, and fear of progress.
For our policies to succeed, our policies must be shaped to accommodate broader support. To continue with our existing policies with ensure we remain an ever decreasing, ever more pure tiny band of ineffectual purists, congratulating each other on our “heroic defeats “.
With that single declaration, he attracted a whole new vibrant membership into the labour party. His sweeping reforms of Party policy and modernization quickly gained the support of centre voters, and overwhelmed the moribund, over-confidant, conservative government putting his party in power for the first time in 23 years.
I realize that the struggle for a better environment is slow and frustrating. It’s difficult to be content with chipping away at a wall when what you want to do is have the power to smash it down today!
Roaring loudly that the wall should be smashed, without any real plan how to do so, is like a lion in a cage hoping his impotent bellows will set him free.
It’s also counter-productive to disdain the efforts of those who are, at least chipping away at the wall. (and persuading other to join in the chipping ).
I would suggest you consider whether your proposition should be correctly be phrased as : The whole thing turns on a single question: do you believe a) that an evolutionary, business-as-usual approach to the environment, with increasingly positive, if modest, improvements and growing support is acceptable at this point.
or
b) that such a position will result in a catastrophic amount of suffering for a huge number of people and that this pushes you past your ethical limits, but you don’t actually know what to do, and since few will join you, in actual fact nothing will get done except a lot of yelling, hand-wringing and impotent roaring ?
Doesn’t the global rise of opportunist populists like Donald Trump, indicate extremist advocacy only produces a disastrous counter-reaction ?
Craig, we both want the same objective. The difference is, as a moderate I only want a better, more sustainable environment.
I see no advantage in a hugely disruptive social revolution, that will inevitably fail, producing a worse result than present.
This week I am attending a conference. At that conference will be attendees with the power to implement a new air-conditioning technology with potential to save massive energy, and AWG/CC emissions.
The technology is neither experimental, nor disruptive, it simply compliments and incorporates much of the older technology. It requires no government subsidies, or advocacy. It will be sold on it’s economic merits.
I don’t care why people buy or use clean tech, just as long as they do. When a Golf course changes from fossil fuel mowers to Solar powered EV mowers, I don’t care if they do so because they are convinced of “green’ philosophy, or because I’ve convinced them for commercial reasons. The environment doesn’t care !
But each of these small examples, heightens green awareness in a far more positive way than a hundred discordant protests. So moderates like me will keep reaching out to the unconverted majority, not lecturing or preaching, but offering a better tangible path.
As I have previously said, my only concern is that your valuable voice remain effective at the things you so ably represent.
For me, I sincerely enjoy your more passionate, and more extreme views. I certainly don’t become ‘infuriated’, but worry that it narrow your audience, and reduces your effectiveness, which I hold in high esteem.
Even Plato thought Socrates resistance would have been more effective if he had been more compromising and sought more support.
Plato clearly thought Socrates gesture was heroic, but ineffective and a waste. (We have to take Plato’s word because Socrates wrote nothing).
Craig – good question and I stand with your side because the time is a wasting and running short to avert serious negative consequences from Ever Looming climate Change and Disruption it will bring.
As usual Our Colleague Marco Champion of the Middle as he claims takes issue and strives to make eloquent Points and that Socrates example is very good if that indeed is the Truth. I have no idea.
Marco thanks for sharing the story on the new AC on the Horizon . End use Efficiency is Fixed demand reduction and the aggregated impact has lasting impact on things.
Now I urge you to lobby for tax changes in the country you reside that takes away all the special tax breaks which commercial Developers get. They hide behind these tax breaks and build as cheap first cost as they can. As a Result great new technologies struggle to gain market acceptance no matter how good their benefits.
Just a Tip of the Barrier Icebergs folks
Special tax breaks for Developers should e made contingent on they building to a technical energy budget limit. Yes a Prescription because the black magic of the market place creates dis incentives to adopt such new good technology because it JUST Might cost $ 300 more than the cheap energy hog model.
Real world Experience speaking here not my Bias.
So allow tax breaks as they are but contingent on certain conditions . To do otherwise is a stick your head in the sand and expect different results Pretend to The End formula for FAILURE.
Regarding driving other people away , well if they want to cut themselves off from a positive oriented Forum with lots of Diversity
than that is their Free Choice It there loss in the end !
Keep on Trucking Craig
Hi Silent,
I’m not sure what you mean by “special tax breaks which commercial Developers get”.
Most tax systems only tax business on profit, so all development cost are deductible. From time to time, governments offer special incentives and tax credits to industries encouraging innovation, employment or increased economic activity.
Sometimes governments use tax measures, rebates or even subsidies to compensate for losses created by other government policies. (removal of tariffs etc).
It’s very important that such measures are based on measurable, objective results, not vague ‘feel good’ ideology.
If used wisely, with effective monitoring these measures can prove very valuable tools in a governments management of the overall economy.
Like every aspect of commercial life, these measures are open to abuse if not carefully monitored and administered. It’s easy for governments to find themselves trapped into containing to subsidize a ‘White Elephant’ for ideological reasons, or worse fear of the consequences of allowing the elephant to die. (think US corn based ethanol).
Individuals can also scam a badly monitored program corruptly, or even unintentionally.
So, yes, I agree with you that careful planning combined with careful and objective monitoring of appropriate government incentives can really help innovative new technologies to develop and become commercially viable.
@ Marco Polo
In the US the commercial developers work under a tax structure that rewards them if they Flip a property after 5 years. they get massive write offs. Since they are flipping the desire to make them super efficient is not strong . I call this market failure.
The effect of these tax rules Negatively Impact the motivation to build the best one can and use the latest and greatest. It bias’s things to short Term thinking.
It works against new devices like the AC you mentioned . I could introduce you to scores of Architects , Design Engrs Vendors who have all fought against this for years.
The LEED and related building design ideas have cracked the Wall some but You would be Shocked to see the same low first cost compromises that were standard practice back in the 1980’s when energy was super cheap here.
Well its 2016 and though progress has been made it is slow and erratic. I am involved in two projects right now where the 5 year tax write off plan is a barrier to the developer incorporating 3 technologies that have Excellent ROI and IRR better than the Casino called Wall St. could Deliver.
As I state in earlier posts real life experiences shape my positions its why at times I may push harder and criticize the system .
I would not waste my time Dreaming this material UP ! have better things to do !
peace take care in Australia always wanted to go there.
Hi Silent,
It seems that what you have is not so much a market failure as a regulatory failure distorting the market.
That’s a common problem with government reg’s and incentives. Once the circumstance that brought them into being disappear the reg’s stay around created unintended problems.
It’s good to see that you aren’t just accepting the status quo, I hope you can get some action from your elected representatives to address the problem.
There are a lot of exciting new environmentally innovative products entering the building and construction industry. There’s always a premium at first until the technology becomes established. (of course there’s also some real crazy idea’s also).
It’s this sort of ‘green’ technology, where clean tech is not only better environmentally, but more desirable for the consumer and cost efficient for the business that will solve environmental problems and change mindsets, far more than recycled old failed ideologies of the 19th century.
So keep on with those new innovative idea’s in the construction and water treatment industries ! The planet needs you.
Oh, and please do visit Australia ! It’s true our federal politicians went a little crazy over the last 8 years ! But for the past 30 years, Australian federal politics was very dull and responsible, so I guess it was time for a little excitement.
I was born and educated in the UK. My mother was an Australian Nurse who traveled to Britain in WW 2 , and met my father when he was wounded at Tobruk in North Africa while seconded to the Australians. My father rejoined his division for the Italian campaign and later to part in the D-Day landings. He fought in seven campaigns and was a highly regarded, much decorated war hero, achieving high rank at a young age.
Unfortunately, he loved excitement and the high life and as a civilian pursued a life of gambling and debt. My mother despaired of him when he spent the funds he had been advanced to by agricultural equipment on a new sports car. She filed for divorce and returned to Australia.
As a result, I used to spend my Christmas Holidays in Australia. What a contrast ! I immediately fell in love with the freedom and optimism of Australia. In contrast post war Britain, was tired shabby, depressed and deprived. The British were locked in a bitter period of internecine class warfare and self loathing. Decay was everywhere.
In contrast, Australia was bright, sunny, with a rapidly expanding middle class growing in confidence and prosperity. my Mother remarried a prosperous Australian farmer (ranch owner) who was a very kind, generous and responsible person.
Australia has grown a lot since then, but it’s still a nation of good-natured optimists. ( As long as you enjoy Beer, you’re ok).
The City of Melbourne, where I live, is a little like San Francisco or Boston, considered the most cultured and sophisticated of the nations cities. (largely by itself 🙂
C’mon down under ! you’d be very welcome ! Oh, and remember to take time to see New Zealand, undoubtedly once of the world most beautiful countries.