shadow of the moon

I saw Shadow of the Moon recently. It is an interesting movie in many respects although overall it was more than a bit disappointing. But there was one thing that really struck me and made me realize how precarious our situation on this planet is.

Astronauts in the movie repeatedly mention the 3 billion people on the planet watching their every move. Three billion? Yes that is right. In the 1960's there were "only" three billion people on the planet. Today there are over 6 billion. The world population doubled in less than a normal lifespan.

Nothing drives it home so clearly than seeing footage you saw before, and events you can remember.

Oh, and before I forget, even back in the 1970's pollution was visible from space. So much for those who think we are too puny to destroy our environment.

boycott ebay

Meg Whitman wants to take California back to the stone age. These aren't my words. These are the words of a Republican governor by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And he is right. Why on earthy would Meg want to overturn the few environmental regulations we have? To create new jobs? You got to be kidding? Destroying the environment cannot bring long lasting value-creating jobs. It is always a stopgap measure.

Meg is not kidding however. She wants to use her "own" money, up to $100 million of it, to roll back the times. That $100 million is money she "earned" as founder and CEO of eBay. It is money, we the people put in her pocket and now she is going to use it against us. I say we teach her a lesson. And it will be a win-win.

eBay has long since stopped being a place for good bargains. I routinely find better deals running a Google search. And Google is better in more ways that one. They ignore spaces and other variants of spelling to get you the information you need. No surprise there, Google is not for nothing the best search engine on the web. And unlike Bing, it lets you make your own decisions.

I sure hope the people of California are smart enough not to support an environmental disaster like Meg Whitman. And I also hope they teach her a lesson by taking back some of that money they pumped into eBay. She doesn't deserve it.

clunkers

Congress just expanded the cash for clunkers program. It is a typical example of Washington "dual use," as we used to call civilian programs with military applications. This one is not of the civilian-military dual nature, but rather of the green-consumerism variety. Once again, it is one of those attempts to do the impossible. One that achieves nothing good.

Destroying perfectly good cars and replacing them with new ones, even if those new ones are more efficient, is an environmental disaster. Every time you throw out something that works fine to replace it with something new, you are creating excess waste, and unnecessarily consuming resources. There is no free lunch here, no matter how you add up the numbers.

If Washington wanted to do something they should make gas more expensive. Much more expensive. That -unfortunately- appears to be the only way to achieve our goal of using less fossil fuels. I have never seen another incentive that works and I doubt one exists. I don't like high gas prices but it appears to be the only option.

If you are serious about the environment and the future of our children, then pay more for gas. Pay more and use less. Unlike what you may think this is not silly. Paying more is the only way we can pay for the true cost of gas. Right now, we are not paying the true cost. We are only paying for the cost of finding, refining, and distributing it -and let's not forget the fat margins for the oil companies. But we are not paying for the environmental destruction and ongoing pollution.

No matter what you think, eventually we will pay. The longer we postpone, the more it will cost too, and the more painful it will be. So, wake up and get real. Pay the bills now before it is too late. And tell Congress cash for clunkers is a dumb idea.

missing the point

Monday's Wall Street Journal had a section on green energy. In the lead article, the authors lamented the fact that the current recession is preventing ordinary people from implementing "green technologies." It actually went a bit further than this and stated that the recession would prevent conservation, i.e. that it would be bad for the environment.

This is a well rehearsed refrain and the Journal has had earlier articles pointing out that the recession would stop industry from developing green technologies. The recession is stifling innovation. It is a set-back for the environmental movement. The cheap price of oil and gas makes  "green technology"  non-competitive.

I have pointed out before the irony in all this, yet very few people seem to see it or want to acknowledge it. Perhaps it is too obvious? Or else nobody feels like they have anything to gain from pointing it out? Maybe they fear it would expose what many see as a fundamental weakness? Yet it is so simple: the less people consume the better our environmental record will be. Consumption is what causes environmental destruction, and the more we consume, the worse off the environment will be.

There is also another irony. A strong belief that technology will save us all. A strong belief that technology reduces the environmental impact we have. Our strong belief in the power of technology -our religion of technology- is at the core of all this. And it is supported by numerous reports showing efficiency gains. Everything we build becomes more efficient, hence it must be better for the environment.

Unfortunately, quite the opposite is true. Technology has done nothing but greatly increased our capacity to damage the environment. And it has done so in many ways, not in the least by making it possible to have so many humans on the planet. The more humans we have, the more of a footprint we leave behind.

Efficiency too has the opposite effect of what is advertised. Efficiencies make it easier for people to afford things, so they buy more, use more and waste more. Efficiency is of no value to the environment. Nature does not "care" how efficiently we use our energy sources. All it "cares about" is how much we use.

Sadly enough, the depression is good for the environment. Even if it causes people to use less-efficient older items. As a matter of fact, it is good because it forces people not to throw out old stuff. It forces them not to buy new items, or travel or otherwise leave a big footprint. That is the good news.

less trash

The LA times reports that the current economic crisis is leading to less trash at landfills. It reads:"For a commentary on California's economic health, visit its landfills, where disposal rates are hitting record lows." Apparently, Puente Hills Landfill, "among the nations largest," noted a 30% decrease in tonnage recently.

First, it proves what I have been reporting all along, that we are a throw-away economy. According to some reports, 90% of what we buy ends up in the trash within six months. If you want to call that economic health -as the Times seems to think- welcome to idiocracy. Have some more kool-aid.

Second, it proves that the economic slowdown is good for the environment. Better than the "green economy" or any investment in "alternative fuel." Environmentalism is about slowing down and consuming less. Our current approach to the environment is like that of an obese person who is looking for alternative therapies instead of eating less and moving around more.

Third, it also shows that our current economy is unsustainable. It is based on churning through resources at ever faster rates. No matter how you slice it, something like that is not sustainable in the long run. And if churning hits high values, the "long" in long run becomes very short indeed. We have become like locusts, and locusts do not survive for very long.

I do not advocate recession, or depression -because that is what we are seeing now, but it appears to be the only way to get us to change our behavior. Much like out-of-control gas consumption was unstoppable until prices rose, it looks like we will need a long and deep depression to kick our bad consumerism habits. 

Common sense has failed, and to get it back we will have to experience some serious, lasting pain. But don't worry. It is coming your way. Don't be fooled by the temporary upswing -the Obama effect- because it is temporary. I have said it many times before and I will keep on repeating it, the worse is yet to come. The Dow will go down to 6,000. It may even go lower. And buying gold -the metal, not mining stocks, but actual bullion- is a smart thing to do.

While I hope we can avoid it, it may get so bad that paper money becomes real paper again.

Meanwhile, keep up the good work, and reduce trash.

Cape Cod windmills

A fight is brewing over offshore windmills near Cape Cod. A fight that apparently pitches "pro-environment" Democrats, who love to promote the benefits of "alternative energy," against the developer of said windmills. A project that was given clearance by none other than George W. Bush, in the waning days of his ill-fated administration. Oh, the irony!

You will no doubt remember that the Cape is a favorite hangout for the Kennedy family and apparently the Kennedy's have been lobbying intensely to keep those ugly windmills away from their summer paradise. It is therefore probably no surprise for you to learn that the Wall Street Journal was eager to jump on this "travesty:" pro-environment Democrats rallying against green energy. And all of it happening at the inauguration of a new pro-environment president.

It turns out that progressive rich folk everywhere sing the praises of alternative energy as long as that energy production does not mess up their cherished views or intrude into their sacred world. Homeowner's associations fight the blight -and glare- of solar panels, and beach lovers rally against offshore windmills, even if such windmills are so far offshore that one needs binoculars to see them clearly.

I have said it before and I think it is worth repeating here. Anyone can call themselves an environmentalist. Anyone can wrap themselves in green and sing the praises of wind, solar, and what have you. But anyone who "needs" to live in a 5,000+ sq foot home, and "needs" to drive an SUV to work, and uses enough energy to make solar a bargain, is not to be taken seriously. That includes Nobel Laureates such as Al Gore. If Mr. Gore were serious, he would move. 

It is easy to say, we need clean energy, but there is no such thing as clean energy. All energy production  comes at a cost. The devices needed may be unsightly, noisy, dangerous, detrimental to wildlife, leave toxic waste, or be difficult to manufacture. One thing is clear, there is no free lunch. That is just plain physics and no amount of marketing can hide it.

Therefore, we should limit our energy use to what is reasonable and necessary. We should not waste it. I do not know exactly where the line is drawn but I do know that average Americans use at least twice as much energy as wealthy Europeans. Without getting anything in return. These average Americans are not healthier, or happier, nor do they live longer, or live better than Europeans. So we have a ways to go. 

If all us of cut our total energy use in half, we would solve many "problems," like the often cited "dependence on foreign oil." We can do so without affecting our real standard of living. Granted we would have to change our life-style in rather drastic ways, but all in all, the end result would be quite acceptable and we would still be as well off as we are today.

All that can be done, without buying new stuff. Without spending money -it would save money- and without grandiose government programs. Next time you see an ad that says buy green, remember, to be green, don't buy. Not buying is green. Irrespective of what it is they are trying to sell you.

how to become a (real) environmentalist

I pointed out in my latest post that anyone can call themselves "an environmentalist." It is a feel-good label, like saying I am a "moral" person. I care about the environment we all live in. But what does it really take to become an environmentalist? Do you need to recycle? Do you have to buy a new fuel-efficient car? Do you throw out those old-fashioned incandescent lights? Do you bring your own bags to the grocery store?

Unfortunately my friends it takes a lot more than that to really help save the environment. And many of the things people view as environmentally responsible are not. For example, you are not an environmentalist when you consume like the average American does. Buying new anything is a big no-no. Buying new stuff to replace old stuff that is in good working condition is the number one capital sin against the environment. Never throw out something that works well, ever.

You see there is a good reason why business types hate the environmental movement. They, unlike many idealistic promoters, realize that it will cost them revenues. It will shrink the economy. Actually, the very best we could do for the environment would be to shrink our economy. By about 85-90% or so.

Business people are very smart though. They understand that you cannot contradict the public's wishes. They also understand that it is much easier and much better to pervert the public's wishes. That is what the green movement is all about. If consumers want green items, sell them green items. Always give the consumer what they want, even when they want something that cannot exist. Always sell new items, even if doing so is the most un-green thing to do. We all have to survive don't we?

You can't call yourself an environmentalist if you live in a big house in suburbia. No matter how clean your neighborhood is, and how much recycling, composting, and other "good" things you do, living large is not a sound thing to do. Driving, the inevitable suburban activity is not green. Not even in a hybrid or electric car. Lighting up your house at night is not green. Using 100 gallons of water per person per day is not green. Having a clothes dryer and using it is not green. Maintaining a lawn or a pool is not green. 

I think you get the picture. The only cure for being destructive to the environment is to change your life-style. Fat chance you say. I don't want to give up my wonderful life-style. My happiness that comes from shopping and consuming. Never mind that depression is rampant across the country. We are happy even if it takes Prozac to prove it.

And speaking of fat, fat is the right word. Because obesity, the inevitable by-product of our environment-unfriendly way of life, will ultimately take its toll. So will asthma and COPD triggered by air pollution, and other ills. And if those things don't help to set us on the right path, then the inevitable collision with an uninhabitable planet will. Sooner or later we will all become environmentally responsible, whether we like it or not. 

Just take a look at what is happening to the high-flyers on Wall Street today. Those guys who told you greed is good. That the party would never end. That things would only get better. Today is a day of reckoning. Unfortunately there are many more to come.