by Scott Adams
“I prefer a more pragmatic definition of green. I think of it as living the life you want, with as much Earth-wise efficiency as your time and budget reasonably allow. Now back to our story.”
This idea, and subsequently the entire article, is a case against activism. It serves as a reassuring pat-on-the-back for those who have a lingering notion that recycling and bicycling isn’t enough, but cannot bear to internalize the severity of the climate crisis.
Forget the climate deniers and the FOX news pundits. They shout into an armed echo chamber made of steel. It isn’t worth it to try to break in and bring them around with things as ignorable as “facts.” We need the people whose minds aren’t closed, who realize what needs to be done, to jump in and do it. They are the same people who are passing Adams’ article around right now.
Most of them have heard the truth again and again, from experts like Bill McKibben and James Hansen and the American Academy of Science, that nothing but immediate, gigantic shifts away from coal to clean methods of making electricity will spare us and future generations from economical/ecological collapse and world-wide human suffering. Yet it is the false but comforting idea that “it is enough just to change a few of our consumption habits” that gains traction. We are in a race against time, and articles like this shoot the winning horse right before it crosses the finish line. Denial and those who articulate it kill the climate movement.
I don’t think Scott Adams is trying to do that. He just isn’t thinking clearly about what it actually means to act upon his desire to, as he describes it, “love the earth”.
Not only does this article say that you shouldn’t try very hard to be green, but by leaving out other options creates the impression that changing your personal habits is the ONLY way to make a difference. There is no activism in that. No pushing the government to change, no holding our leaders’ feet to the fire, no resistance, no stopping the coal-trains in their tracks, no refusal to participate in the system that is directly responsible for this looming disaster. It implies that meaningful, practical actions such as these are waay out there, when in reality, hard-hitting activism must be part of any “green” lifestyle.
I am not arguing that personal consumption changes are meaningless. I am saying that they will not mean squat if they aren’t accompanied by a willingness to make real sacrifices.
The climate crisis is like a cruise ship, with no lifeboats, that is headed straight for a huge iceberg. We can’t run to the gift shop and buy our way out of our predicament, even though they are selling things in there that make us feel like we are helping. Rich people can buy what they are told by Con Artist, Inc. to be plugs for the imminent hole in the boat. Middle-class passengers can purchase “Green House” brand earplugs, to block out the screaming. And the poor people? They are the ones trapped on the lower decks making all the noise. They are screaming, “Storm the captain’s deck you fools!! Seize the wheel!!”
But that, your friends tell you, is unthinkable.
Visit Peaceful Uprising
Ashley!
Nice to meet you on Facebook!
Thanks for posting your question about how Mr. Adams’ article deals with the problems.
I misunderstood what you were getting at there but now understand better after reading your post here.
I was feeling like a rainstorm on the parade that somehow Mr. Adams’ article was funny. I was also feeling like I must be a bummer all around and have challenges in the humor department.
Your post expressed the gravity of these matters and helped me feel better about my gut reactions. Thank you.
I will post the dialogue we shared on Facebook here in case some of your readers might be interested.
A poster shared the Adams’ article and cartoon.
Someone commented “Do you like this article?”
The poster responded: “It deals with the problems … in a humorous way. Its long, but funny.”
The first commentor wrote back: “I’m just wondering how it deals with the problems.”
I replied on the Facebook post with the following:
“Hi, I don’t think it deals with the problems.
From my perspective it perpetuates myths, presents problems based on inaccurate information and flawed decision-making and doesn’t offer solid info on root cause and solution building. …I really like the cartoon but gotta say that I didn’t find the writing very humorous or helpful in terms of helping people understand basic principles and promoting a paradigm shift in perspective.
Here is what I wrote on the comment section of the first poster’s page:
” I appreciate Mr. Adams’ efforts and his writing but don’t find it to be accurate or very funny due to the myths it propagates. It reminds me that I really should write something similar since my knowledge and experience would paint a very different picture.
I am a single woman (RN) on a very limited budget who designed and built an off-grid, so-called “green”, shelter system that was very economical and actually works very very well. There’s some info about the projects and our efforts at http://www.greenenergyohio.org/ost/siteDetail.cfm?site_id=382
Most imporantly it’s not just about “Loving the Earth”, it’s about informed decision-making, living comfortably with less and demonstrating love for our grandchildren while being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. ”
In addition, the whole notion of some lover of the Earth building a shelter of twigs and pinecones says a lot about the lack of common sense inherent, even though I understand he was just trying to be funny and build upon the box people tend to put “back to the earth” folks into…but give me a break. If you’re going to take it to the extreme…at least use rocks, cob, etc., or do what I did and move into a cave for awhile.”
The original poster then replied:
“Kathy, I disagree with you. I found it very humorous. Scott Adams is the creator of ‘Dilbert’ and his purpose was not to be serious, but humorous. The article also provided a link, which I provided also, to “Great Green Homes” at: http…://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704868604575433620189923744.html#project%3DSLIDESHOW08%26s%3DSB10001424052748704476104575439950281597016%26articleTabs%3Dslideshow
By the way, what myths were you referring too and what references were you using besides presenting your link?”
And…I replied:
“HI…thanks for your feedback.
humorous to some, non-humorous to others, detrimental to some. it’s all cool though just depends on perspective. and it’s great that it brought humor into your life.
Humor is a very good thing, a very… healthy thing. Some people find watching someone ride their bike into a block wall very humorous. It makes them laugh, is good for physical health, etc., which is all good. Whatever rings our bells and makes us laugh is good. As a nurse, used to blood/gore, death, etc., things that I find funny, i.e. gallows humor, is often entirely inappropriate and unfunny to many.
But, I am the first to admit I need more humor in my life but the very reality that such perceptions still exist, (they must if he pokes fun at it), makes me feel heavy. Doesn’t bring laughter, or a chuckle or make me feel hopeful, inspired and excited. Just reminds me how much more work there is to do and how we haven’t really come very far.
Perhaps you could help me understand the humor in it. What is it about Mr. Adams’ essay that you find funny?
I am inspired to write in follow-up to all the points that caught my attention related to practicality, common sense and the perpetuation of myths, etc but must get off this computer and get outside to take care of some projects before giving a tour of the systems here in a little bit.
I’m not critical of Mr. Adams’ writing as it is funny to some and at least brings up the topic of alternative considerations when building and/or making related decisions. I also appreciate that you posted it.
But as someone who has to address misconceptions, etc., during my educational outreach efforts it just made me sigh a bit. Some city folks joined us for the World Kitchen Garden Day event yesterday. They were great and really enjoyed finding out how comfortable one can be, that it’s not about going back in time, etc. I still remember how surprised one woman was that I had a computer, let alone all the other electrical gadgets we have in this off-grid motherhouse, and that it was high speed with wireless capabilites allowing folks to access the internet from the dome in the woods. She must have been thinking I was living in a hut made of twigs and pinecones and perhaps it is a rather common perspective.
Is that why you find the piece funny?
The myths that “it’s not easy being green” and/or that these concepts are too difficult for the average lay person to grasp, necessitating architects, specialists, etc. and that there are numerous problems, flaws and reasons why folks like me are bleeding heart, love the earth, idiots who will never recoup the money just doesn’t seem very funny to me today.
Do you find it funny because people still think that way and Mr. Adams’ is poking fun at it as to how absurb such thinking is?
The path that the whole fad, greenwashing campaign, credentialling systems, LEED, etc. has taken represents some good steps forward but there are also aspects that are very disappointing and disheartening. The idiot quotient could be funny if it wasn’t so saddening and painful.
If I re-read Mr. Adams’ peice tomorrow, the humorous aspects may be more evident to me. Right now, it’s more of a feeling of “oh, this is why it is so hard to get people to move beyond faulty assumptions and the old pre-programmed way of seeing the world”.
Sure, it might be funny to think of someone having a hard time giving up a western view, or gawd forbid the view from the curb, in order to conserve energy…but to me, it’s just not very funny. It’s like folks who will go for vaulted, cathedral ceilings and big open space rooms just for the esthetics, regardless of the need for fan systems, increased heat, etc.
There appears to be a big gulf between how urban oriented individuals perceive the world and interact with it and the close to the Earth, grounded reality of many from the rural areas. I don’t like to generalize but there does indeed appear to be a need for more rural based folks to add to the diversity of dialogue on these topics. It is most certainly true in terms of the need to incorporate rural factors into research, frameworks, etc.
I haven’t checked out the other link you sent but will and one of these days will get my blog up and rolling as a way to contribute additional offerings to the table of considerations, i.e. the great dialogue and the sharing of information that exists on the web.
And, I apologize if I rained on any parades today. It may be that I am feeling a little weary today. The path of a change agent can be rather difficult and I probably should have just kept my mouth shut and instead sought refueling in nature.
But I was looking for something funny, was thrilled to find your humorous offering related to green building and was excited to check it out. It may have been that I had some expectations for what I might find, something I try to avoid doing, but instead found something that just reminded me of the gravity of the challenges.
Ack…didn’t at all mean to write so much. gotta get outside.”
I also followed up on the link he shared and am still shaking my head.
I brought up the aspect of rural/urban perspectives, you (Ashley) brought up the rich/poor perspective and perhaps that is more accurate.
I also like the quote, below, from your post but would add that it is more than just the climate crisis. We’ve got peak oil, economic and centralized system instability and a chronic disaster unfolding right now related to health care, etc.
I often use the metaphor of the white water raft, that we’re all in the same boat, all need to pick up our paddles and row and need excellent, visionary and experienced guides to get out onto another course, system path, to avoid hitting the fatal undercut in the river just ahead.
I am one of the poor making a lot of noise and screaming “storm the deck you fools! seize the wheel!”. Not with an us vs them approach, after all we’re all in the same boat, but rather with a positive goal oriented, bottom-up/top-down approach.
Mr. Adams’ article just seemed to reinforce the apathy, provide excuses, poke fun at us idiot’s who have made dramatic change in our lives, quit our jobs and are literally doing everything we can to get this raft onto a sustainable path with inter-independent collaborative systems in place for future generations.
I agree with you, appreciate yuor post, including your title “John Adams’ Green House of Denial”
It is normal and healthy for people to feel grief, denial, etc., during these times but for a writer of such caliber and opinion leadership to write such a piece is extremely disappointing and I personally do not find it funny.
There are many many people, such as yourself, working very hard to help us face the fact that we have a raging forest fire, a worse case scenario, barreling down upon us.
Efforts to wake people up, inform, inspire, empower and mobilize takes a lot of energy…we need all the help we can get, including humor. But, at least from my perspective, this article, after a weekend of outreach efforts, only served to bum me out and eat up my energy and time writing about it.
What the heck is funny about it?
But I did get to meet you and so with any challenge, barrier, etc., there is usually great good that comes out of it. So I thank Mr. Adams’ for spurring the dialogue and helping to strengthen our sense of comraderie.
“The climate crisis is like a cruise ship, with no lifeboats, that is headed straight for a huge iceberg. We can’t run to the gift shop and buy our way out of our predicament, even though they are selling things in there that make us feel like we are helping.
Rich people can buy what they are told by Con Artist, Inc. to be plugs for the imminent hole in the boat.
Middle-class passengers can purchase “Green House” brand earplugs, to block out the screaming.
And the poor people?
They are the ones trapped on the lower decks making all the noise. They are screaming, “Storm the captain’s deck you fools!! Seize the wheel!!”
But that, your friends tell you, is unthinkable.”
Great stuff! Thanks Ashley! But I for one know that it is not only thinkable, it is entirely do-able and indeed, our only hope.
Once you get over the hurdle of denial and take a good look at the risks we face…they are all possible scenarios regardless of whether you believe the scientific data or not. Argument and debate is just another form of denial, distraction and avoidance.
The triggers within the system are switched and this ship, at least as we have known it, is going down.
Yes, speak up, hold our public officials and other government leaders accountable but it’s also time to gather within our geographical neighborshoods, build our inter-independent localized networks and get ready.
It’s a question of wants vs needs. All of those fancy, so-called green homes are for show…start thinking about survival and helping your neighbors along the way.
Consider the possible ways climate change may likely to impact your area, your food growing, water harvesting capabilities, etc. How are you going to get supplies if/when oil supplies diminish, prices go up and/or it just isn’t available anymore?
A resilient community is one that knows that there isn’t a white knight coming to fix the problems or rescue the people. And, I agree with the Transition Iniatives phrase that goes something like…
If we wait for government it will be too little to late, If we act as individuals it will be too little, but if we act as communities it may be just enough, just in time.
We all need healthy humor but for one who has been in the trenches at the front lines for over thirty years…I found nothing humorous about Mr. Adams’ article nor did I feel that it offered anything to help us move collectively toward our goals.
But, that’s just my $0.02 worth after three full days of outreach efforts and another tour rolling in here any moment. If I”m missing something, please let me know.
I definitely need to find something humorous in all this though so would welcome anyone else’s attempt at helping me experience belly wrentching humor along this path.
Peace and thanks to everyone who is getting off the couch, stepping up to the plate and doing something to help us take care of each other and strengthen our collective, global efforts.
Nice to meet you on Facebook! Thanks for posting your question about how Mr. Adams’ article deals with the problems. I misunderstood what you were getting at there but now understand better after reading your post here. I was kind of feeling like a rainstorm on the parade that somehow Mr. Adams’ article was funny. I was also feeling like I must be a bummer all around and have challenges in the humor department. Your post expressed the gravity of these matters and helped me feel better about my gut reactions. Thank you. I will post the dialogue we shared on Facebook here in case some of your readers might be interested.
A poster shares the Adams’ article and cartoon.
Someone comments “Do you like this article?”
The poster responds: “It deals with the problems … in a humorous way. Its long, but funny.”
The first commentor writes back: “I’m just wondering how it deals with the problems.”
I reply and share the article and my comments with my facebook friends:
“Hi, I don’t think it deals with the problems.
From my perspective it perpetuates myths, presents problems based on inaccurate information and flawed decision-making and doesn’t offer solid info on root cause and solution building. …I really like the cartoon but gotta say that I didn’t find the writing very humorous or helpful in terms of helping people understand basic principles and promoting a paradigm shift in perspective.
Here is what I wrote on the comment section of the first poster’s page:
” I appreciate Mr. Adams’ efforts and his writing but don’t find it to be accurate or very funny due to the myths it propagates. It reminds me that I really should write something similar since my knowledge and experience would paint a very different picture.
I am a single woman (RN) on a very limited budget who designed and built an off-grid, so-called “green”, shelter system that was very economical and actually works very very well. There’s some info about the projects and our efforts at http://www.greenenergyohio.org/ost/siteDetail.cfm?site_id=382
Most imporantly it’s not just about “Loving the Earth”, it’s about informed decision-making, living comfortably with less and demonstrating love for our grandchildren while being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. ”
In addition, the whole notion of some lover of the Earth building a shelter of twigs and pinecones says a lot about the lack of common sense inherent, even though I understand he was just trying to be funny and build upon the box people tend to put “back to the earth” folks into…but give me a break. If you’re going to take it to the extreme…at least use rocks, cob, etc., or do what I did and move into a cave for awhile.”
The original poster then replied:
“Kathy, I disagree with you. I found it very humorous. Scott Adams is the creator of ‘Dilbert’ and his purpose was not to be serious, but humorous. The article also provided a link, which I provided also, to “Great Green Homes” at: http…://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704868604575433620189923744.html#project%3DSLIDESHOW08%26s%3DSB10001424052748704476104575439950281597016%26articleTabs%3Dslideshow
By the way, what myths were you referring too and what references were you using besides presenting your link?”
And…I replied:
“HI…thanks for your feedback.
humorous to some, non-humorous to others, detrimental to some. it’s all cool though just depends on perspective. and it’s great that it brought humor into your life.
Humor is a very good thing, a very… healthy thing. Some people find watching someone ride their bike into a block wall very humorous. It makes them laugh, is good for physical health, etc., which is all good. Whatever rings our bells and makes us laugh is good. As a nurse, used to blood/gore, death, etc., things that I find funny, i.e. gallows humor, is often entirely inappropriate and unfunny to many.
But, I am the first to admit I need more humor in my life but the very reality that such perceptions still exist, (they must if he pokes fun at it), makes me feel heavy. Doesn’t bring laughter, or a chuckle or make me feel hopeful, inspired and excited. Just reminds me how much more work there is to do and how we haven’t really come very far.
Perhaps you could help me understand the humor in it. What is it about it that you find funny?
I am inspired to write in follow-up to all the points that caught my attention related to practicality, common sense and the perpetuation of myths, etc but must get off this computer and get outside to take care of some projects before giving a tour of the systems here in a little bit.
I’m not critical of Mr. Adams’ writing as it is funny to some and at least brings up the topic of alternative considerations when building and/or making related decisions. I also appreciate that you posted it.
But as someone who has to address misconceptions, etc., during my educational outreach efforts it just made me sigh a bit. Some city folks joined us for the World Kitchen Garden Day event yesterday. They were great and really enjoyed finding out how comfortable one can be, that it’s not about going back in time, etc. I still remember how surprised one woman was that I had a computer, let alone all the other electrical gadgets we have, and that it was high speed with wireless capabilites allowing folks to access the internet from the dome in the woods. She must have been thinking I was living in a hut made of twigs and pinecones and perhaps it is a rather common perspective.
Is that why you find the peice funny?
The myths that “it’s not easy being green” and/or that these concepts are too difficult for the average lay person to grasp, necessitating architects, specialists, etc. and that there are numerous problems, flaws and reasons why folks like me are bleeding
heart, love the earth, idiots who will never recoup the money just doesn’t seem very funny to me today. Do you find it funny because people still think that way and Mr. Adams’ is poking fun at it as to how absurb such thinking is?
The path that the whole fad, greenwashing campaign, credentialling systems, LEED, etc. has taken represents some good steps forward but there are also aspects that are very disappointing and disheartening. The idiot quotient could be funny if it wasn’t so saddening and painful.
If I re-read Mr. Adams’ peice tomorrow, the humorous aspects may be more evident to me. Right now, it’s more of a feeling of “oh, this is why it is so hard to get people to move beyond faulty assumptions and the old pre-programmed way of seeing the world”.
Sure, it might be funny to think of someone having a hard time giving up a western view, or gawd forbid the view from the curb, in order to conserve energy…but to me, it’s just not very funny. It’s like folks who will go for a vaulted, cathedral ceilings and big open space rooms just for the esthetics, regardless of the need for fan systems, increased heat, etc.
There appears to be a big gulf between how urban oriented individuals perceive the world and interact with it and the close to the EArth, grounded reality of many from the rural areas. I don’t like to generalize but there does indeed appear to be a need for more rural based folks to add to the diversity of dialogue on these topics. It is most certainly true in terms of the need to incorporate rural factors into research, frameworks, etc.
I haven’t checked out the other links you sent but will and one of these days will get my blog up and rolling as a way to contribute additional offerings to the table of considerations, i.e. the great dialogue and the sharing of information that exists on the web.
And, I apologize if I rained on any parades today. It may be that I am feeling a little weary today. The path of a change agent can be rather difficult and I probably should have just kept my mouth shut and instead sought refueling in nature.
But I was looking for something funny, was thrilled to find your humorous offering related to green building and was excited to check it out. It may have been that I had some expectations for what I might find, something I try to avoid doing, but instead found something that just reminded me of the gravity of the challenges.
Ack…didn’t at all mean to write so much. gotta get outside.”
I also followed up on the link he shared and am still shaking my head.
I brought up the aspect of rural/urban perspectives, you brought up the rich/poor perspective and perhaps that is more accurate.
I also like the quote, below, from your post but would add that it is more than just the climate crisis. We’ve got peak oil, economic and centralized system instability and a chronic disaster unfolding right now related to health care, etc. I often use the metaphor of the white water raft, that we’re all in the same boat, all need to pick up our paddles and row and need excellent visionary and experienced guides to get out onto another course, system path, to avoid hitting the fatal undercut in the riverr.
I am one of the poor making a lot of noise and screaming “storm the deck you fools! seize the wheel!”. Not with an us vs them approach, after all we’re all in the same boat, but rather with a positive goal oriented, bottom-up/top-down approach.
Mr. Adams’ article just seemed to reinforce the apathy, provide excuses, poke fun at us idiot’s who have made dramatic change in our lives, quit our jobs and are literally doing everything we can to get this raft onto a sustainable path with inter-independent collaborative systems in place for future generations.
I agree with you, appreciate yuor post, including your title “John Adams’ Green House of Denial”
It is normal and healthy for people to feel grief, denial, etc., during these times but for a writer of such caliber and opinion leadership to write such a peice is extremely disappointing and I personally do not find it funny.
There are many many people, such as yourself, working very hard to help us face the fact that we have a raging forest fire, a worse case scenario, barreling down upon us. Efforts to wake people up, inform, inspire, empower and mobilize takes a lot of energy…we need all the help we can get, including humor. But, at least from my perspective, this article after a weekend of outreach efforts, only served to bum me out and eat up my energy and time writing about it.
But I did get to meet you and so with any challenge, barrier, etc., there is usually great good that comes out of it. So I thank Mr. Adams’ for spurring the dialogue and helping to strengthen our sense of comraderie.
“The climate crisis is like a cruise ship, with no lifeboats, that is headed straight for a huge iceberg. We can’t run to the gift shop and buy our way out of our predicament, even though they are selling things in there that make us feel like we are helping.
Rich people can buy what they are told by Con Artist, Inc. to be plugs for the imminent hole in the boat.
Middle-class passengers can purchase “Green House” brand earplugs, to block out the screaming.
And the poor people? They are the ones trapped on the lower decks making all the noise. They are screaming, “Storm the captain’s deck you fools!! Seize the wheel!!”
But that, your friends tell you, is unthinkable.”
Great stuff! Thanks Ashley! But I for one know that it is not only thinkable, it is entirely do-able and indeed, our only hope.
Once you get over the hurdle of denial and take a good look at the risks we face…they are all possible scenarios regardless of whether you believe the scientific data or not. Argument and debate is just another form of denial, distraction and avoidance. This ship is going down, some green gadget to plug the holes and make you feel better is not going to save the ship and get the babies to a viable future. Yes, speak up, hold our public officials and government leaders accountable but it’s also time to gather within our geographical neighborshoods, build our inter-independent localized networks and get ready.
It’s a question of wants vs needs. All of those fancy, so-called green homes are for show…start thinking about survival and helping your neighbors along the way.
In what way is climate change likely to impact your area, your food growing, water harvesting capabilities, etc. How are you going to get supplies if/when oil supplies diminish, prices go up and/or it just isn’t available anymore?
A resilient community is one that knows that there isn’t a white knight coming to fix the problems or rescue the people. And, I agree with the Transition Iniatives phrase that goes something like…
If we wait for government it will be too little to late, If we act as individuals it will be too little, but if we act as communities it may be just enough, just in time.
We all need healthy humor but for one who has been in the trenches at the front lines for over thirty years…I found nothing humorous about Mr. Adams’ article nor did I feel that it offered anything to help us move collectively toward our goals.
But, that’s just my $0.02 worth after three full days of outreach efforts and another tour rolling in here any moment. If I”m missing something, please let me know.
I definitely need to find something humorous in all this though so would welcome anyone else’s attempt at helping me experience belly wrentching humor along this path.
Peace and thanks to everyone who is getting off the couch, stepping up to the plate and doing something to help us take care of each other and strengthen our collective, global efforts.
Hey,
I renovated my house green and it really wasn’t that hard and it is actually going to make me money. Yes, house renovation has this strange way of multiplying problems, but if you have a clear vision and did a little research, it comes together pretty well.
I actually and doing very well by installing solar panels, got cheap but high-efficiency windows, and other improvements are very little overall cost – including a solar attic fan that cost me $300 (not counting the tax credit).
So, I don’t have that much sympathy for Scott Adams. Yes, it can be complicated. However, it sounds like he did it the absolutely hardest way…or maybe that was just for dramatic effect.
At least he did it.
-Richard
I’ve read the article, and certainly, cynical for sure. Some people will, as you say, hear what they want to hear from that I suppose and figure “there, see? Why even bother?” Not the best message to get. But, I commend his effort, for whatever good he feels it will be worth in the future.
I agree with your article in that certainly there is a huge need for full activism to change things in this world and make a difference. Many of the people I run into think this is true too, but they don’t actively do anything at all, not even at home. Yes, they’ve heard about global warming and climate crisis, but shrug it off, and go about their daily routine. It’s too big to relate to for some people in terms of how they can help.
I think that in order for many people to appreciate the bigger picture and become reasonably educated about it, they have to at least be doing something towards green living first within their own personal environment and space, and be encouraged to keep it up. Because, it does mean something, and hopefully it will lead to more and people being truly passionate about the bigger problems.
“nothing but immediate, gigantic shifts away from coal to clean methods of making electricity will spare us and future generations from economical/ecological collapse and world-wide human suffering.”
But that is clearly not enough. There’s no reason to assume clean energy can supplant the enormous amounts consumed through fossil fuels. Yes, a realistic position dictates a maximal shift towards clean energy. But there would also have to be drastic changes to the average person’s way of life if we were to achieve sufficient emission cuts. The latter, the lifestyle changes, probably represents the major reason why most people are in serious denial about this problem. There’s probably a real fear, perhaps not entirely unfounded, as to what such a drastically changed way of life actually would entail. Overcoming that fear may be the greatest challenge. Recommended reading: Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society, by Ted Trainer
Nice post. I myself have been feeling more and more bothered lately by the sense that efforts to popularize the idea of “going green,” has turned the environmental movement into nothing more than a fashion statement. I realize the original intent of many of these efforts was to convince people to change their lifestyles by proving saving the planet doesn’t have to be difficult – but this idea seems to have backfired. I’m reminded of a quote from Aldo Leopold, who realized that great moral battles are not won by pretending they won’t require effort. “In our attempt to make conservation easy,” wrote Leopold, “we have made it trivial.” More than fifty years later, it’s a lesson environmentalists still need to learn.
Renovating a house is dependent on the location, existing design, and the available subsidies. I have seen some impressive passive solar homes, although they are often built by those really dedicated vs the average homeowner.
As for the general idea of lifestyles, this is probably one of the “elephants in the living room.” You can solve the carbon issue while maintaining close to current lifestyles IF you are willing to accept technologies such as nuclear energy, GM foods, etc. My guess is that most of the IGHIH prefer lifestyle changes over certain technologies vs many who would embrace such tools to maintain their desired standard of living. This is a debate that has often been neglected by all sides of the carbon issue (i.e., climate deniers against lifestyle change activists). There is a spectrum of opinion on these matters that needs to be vetted.
I took offense to Scott Adams’ statement – “Conclusion: Photovoltaic systems are a waste of money.”
My wife has the view that most people install solar pv systems for the environmental benefits and I looked at it from a financial point of view which we thought was the minority viewpoint. Well, a new survey of Californians show that people install solar pv systems because of the financial benefits first – in a two to one margin.
http://sunpluggers.com/news/survey-saving-money-tops-saving-environment-as-reason-for-solar-0790
Granted without Federal Grants, State Grants and SREC’s Solar PV systems would not be finiacially viable just based upon energy savings. However, if the money is out there and available to the public why not take fully advantage of it.
My PV system in Maryland will pay for itself in 7 1/2 years and an ROI of over 10%. The environmental benefits are great but that does not pay for the bills.
Love the cruise ship analogy.