We need to transition to an economy that produces and consumes less

As the economy shows some signs of recovery, the divide between the haves and the have-nots remains a problem.

The stock market is back to record highs (not adjusted for inflation, but the Wall Street types like to ignore such things and focus on their Dow Jones type metrics, it's a psych thing), housing is up, Corporations are in great shape (propped up by foreign profits), but the unemployment numbers are barely budging.  Poverty numbers are in shameful territory, the net worth of the middle class has dropped and stayed low, and the social safety net is at risk.

So, what is the real problem, and how do we address it?  Well, I believe that the issue is that we are in a confluence of historic changes in world population and technological advancement.  The technology has improved to make manufacturing more efficient and productive, and thus requires fewer workers to make more products. This means that even if manufacturing makes a major return to the U.S., fewer workers will be needed here at home to produce those products.

Meanwhile, the explosive growth of humanity over the last few decades has put a huge burden on the planet's resources that technology is expected to relieve.  I believe that that is a false hope.  The size of the problem is just too huge.  Humanity needs to transition to a paradigm of lower consumption in order to try to maintain the health of the environment.

The problem then, is that even if we reduce consumption and thus save the planet, we are likewise reducing demand for products putting even more people out of work.

Economists get a lot of press (or whatever the digital equivalent term is) analyzing the economy and prognosticating the best ways to grow the economy and get people back to work.  But, if we succeeded in the ways that the economists would like, we trash the planet.

This is why I believe that we need to transition to an economy that produces and consumes less, shares the bounties of technology more, decreases the disparities of income and wealth, and favors lower procreation rates to save our planet. 

Believe in democracy. Do the right thing for the common good.

If people did the right thing, we wouldn't need regulations to compel them to do so. 

I am not claiming that all regulations compel the right thing.  There are too many powerful lobbies influencing regulators to make that claim.  But, if you believe in democracy, and are smart enough not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, regulations generally reflect the collective will of the people.  Or, at least the indirect will of the people through those we elect to represent us.

Many laws and regulations have near universal support.  When considering "regulation", there often is a split between those in favor and those against.  This is ridiculous.  The lack of specificity in the argument polarizes the camps into this for and against situation.  Any discussion of regulation, without specifying a particular regulation or group of regulations, is a shallow mockery of intelligent discourse.  To be against "regulation" as a generic term, means to be against civil democracy.

In my experience, I have found that people are more interested in themselves, their families, and their own personal community of friends that share their lifestyle, than in the collective common good.  Doing the "right thing" for them means to do that which positively effects them or their circle, as defined above, as opposed to that which positively effects the common good.  There are many examples of this.

One example is taxes.  The conservative republican and libertarian stance on taxes is that they are against them.  What an easy argument to win.  If people act as I suggest, they will agree that taxes are bad and will be against them, regardless of the positive effects that paying their share has on the common good.  As with regulation, to be generically against "taxes" means to be against civil democracy.  One must be specific in one's arguments.  This is the origin of the disconnect between the desire to cut taxes and the lack of ability to find programs to cut from the budget.  People like the government programs that are funded by taxes.  But they still like the anti-tax stance because they see their own money, their own self interest, being taken to pay for them.

People need to do the right thing for the common good.  Sure, there are varying opinions as to what is in the best interest of the common good.  But, if everyone was trying for the common good there would be less division than if everyone was looking out for their own good and that of their own personal circle.  Compromise would be easier to achieve.  Agreement would be more common.  The common good would be more served.

Believe in democracy. Do the right thing for the common good.

Don't waste the energy that I am trying to save

One of many frustrations that environmentalists endure is that of seeing so much energy wasted in our society while we are making conscious efforts to save it.

While it is a bit of a non sequitur to tie the electricity I manage to save by making active energy use choices to the waste of energy by any one particular user, it is annoying at best to make those choices and to see a case of unnecessary energy use and to know that it is wasting more energy than I am saving.

I heard that the new Memorial Bridge being built in Portsmouth New Hampshire and Maine will be illuminated by LED lights as kind of a show piece, a local focal point.  Probably something that will show up in tourist brochures.  The announcement spoke of energy efficient LEDs.  Now anyone who has followed my blog knows that I am a promoter of LED lights.  But, I promote LEDs as a replacement for other less efficient bulbs, NOT as excuses to light the world unnecessarily.

I found this article with photos on the subject:

http://portsmouth-nh.patch.com/articles/psnh-donates-40k-to-memorial-bridge-lighting-project

I hope that they use LED street lights, if they feel the need (I do not share the opinion that the bridge needs lights at all) to illuminate the road surface, but to put decorative lights on the bridge and to use the excuse that the lights are energy efficient masks the reality that energy is being wasted.  I am sure that the lighting of this bridge will not be "dark sky compliant" which is another reason to oppose such lighting of the bridge.

I remember reading an article somewhere that spoke of the moral hazard of energy efficiency technology.  It spoke of the risk that the low relative cost of energy efficient technologies would lead to wasteful use of those technologies.  Sadly I see this as an example of that process.

So whether it is lighting a bridge unneccesarily, or any other wasteful use of energy, please, don't waste the energy that I am trying to save.

A bit of dis-assembly facilitates recycling

Our humidifier "died" a few days ago.  We rarely use it.  Our home humidity generally remains at a decent level even in the winter (for one example why see: Hang your clothes to dry them, even indoors).  But recently the dry air won the battle, so I went out to the barn and got out our old humidifier.  After running it for a few days, I was awakened by our smoke detector which had detected an electrical short caused by a leak.  The bottom of the reservoir where the element comes through had corroded beyond being able to seal properly.  This was a non-repairable situation, so the humidifier was "dead".

This caused me to embark on my usual dis-assembly process of dead appliances.  All it took was a Phillips head screwdriver and a few minutes to separate plastics, metal, and electronics.  I was quite pleased as I took it apart to find the plastics recycling code markings on all of the large plastic parts, which made recycling even easier.

Recycling is very important for our planet.  Some things are easier to recycle than others.  When things are beyond repair, their serviceable life expended, it is time for disposal.  Many things can be recycled with a small effort.  Whereas this humidifier would not be recyclable whole, its parts were easily recyclable with a small bit of effort.

Having dis-assembled a number of things for disposal, I have found that many times there are even parts that can be saved for reuse.  Screws, bolts, springs, o-rings, and other parts can be put in stock for when they are needed in the future.

We really need to transition to the philosophy of the "cradle to cradle" manufacturing and recycling of products promoted by McDonough and Braungart in Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.  While we wait for industry to get fully on board with that necessary advancement, one of the ways you can help to reduce waste and recycle items you are discarding, is to spend a few minutes dis-assembling and separating the parts for proper recycling. You will feel good about your efforts and the planet will thank you.

Heat tape and other cold weather band-aids

It's winter here in the northern hemisphere.  Climate change and global weirding has had our weather fluctuating between bitter cold and unseasonably warm.  During the really cold spells, energy consumption spikes as homes and businesses find their furnaces, boilers, and heaters running longer and more often in order to maintain comfortable living temperatures.  That is completely understandable.  While it is best to keep temperatures a bit low, and to add a clothing layer, realistically we all need to heat our homes.

What I would like to address is heat tape and other methods of preventing freezing.  In most cases, creating heat to prevent freezing with these products merely masks a problem that needs to be solved, and is not itself the solution.  The energy that is wasted is substantial and the solution is to correct the problem as opposed to reacting to it by using a product that constantly consumes energy.

Heat tape is used to prevent pipes from freezing, keeping ice from expanding and rupturing the pipe causing a damaging leak.  What is really needed is to correct the problem which puts the pipe in danger of freezing.  Proper location and insulation of water pipes and the walls they run through, should eliminate the need to use heat tape.  Most people do not use heat tape, so those that do should consider what they can do to fix their potential freezing situation.  There is obviously something wrong, but heat tape is not the answer.

Another use of a heat tape product is in order to prevent ice dams on the eaves of a roof.  These heat tapes zig-zag along the edge of the roof constantly heating the area in hopes of melting any snow and ice that may accumulate there causing ice dams.  Ice dams can be damaging and dangerous, but proper roof construction and insulation can eliminate the need for this wasteful energy waste.

As if heat tape wasn't bad enough, there is worse out there.  While radiant heat is fine indoors, there is an entire industry creating products to melt snow from on sidewalks and even driveways.  Pipes cast in to the concrete circulate heated water through the concrete heating it so snow and ice cannot accumulate.  This takes huge amounts of energy.  A shovel and perhaps an occasional bit of sand was adequate for centuries, there is no need for such a wasteful product.

So, please consider wasteful energy uses that relate to cold, snow, and ice.  There are alternatives and the planet needs us to use them.

I don't like freebies

I don't like freebies. Most people love freebies. Something for nothing can be nearly irresistible. One thinks, “I may need something like this, so why not take it.” Well, for one reason, because you don't need it now, and by accepting it you validate the practice of giving our wasteful freebies.

Companies use freebies to promote themselves and their products. It is understandable that they want to promote and advertise, but excessive freebies is a waste. When notepads, pens, and pencils are given out by companies to the extent far beyond any need, that is wasteful enough, but it gets worse. Permanent items like customized company coffee mugs are really bad. Assuming you even like drinking your coffee while advertizing a product you use in your business or personal life, a ceramic coffee mug should last for many years. So if you receive a freebie mug you shouldn't need another for a long time, but they keep coming.

There are many categories of freebies. Many freebies are virtually forced on you. An example is that of packaged condiments and white rice that is invariably included with Chinese food takeout around here and presumably everywhere else. When my order includes a large pork fried rice, why must I expect 2 containers of white rice as well, even when I specifically request “no white rice”? And 5 or 6 packets of soy sauce and duck sauce I don't use. These should be items free by request, not automatically included.

At this time of year, my wife and I choose which, of the many, freebie wall calendars we will use for the year. The unrequested rest go to waste.

The same goes for free add-ons. One of my least favorites is the “collectible vase” sold with flower bouquets. Really? We have way more collectible vases than we will ever use, but bouquets are often sold in them and I have to wonder how many of these permanent products are used during the life, or I guess more appropriately death, of a flower bouquet and then thrown out?

The list goes on and on: refrigerator magnets, key fobs, stickers, thumb drives (usually small capacity), drink coozies, “baseball caps”, etc.

Another one of my least favorites is the freebie given as a “reward” for purchasing or donating. “Renew your subscription/membership today and get a free” whatever. These things CAN be useful, BUT, if you already have more shopping totes (you should by now) than you need, or already have an umbrella, or whatever, accepting another one is wasteful.

So, you get the idea. Please decline any freebies that you don't really need. Our planet needs us to minimize waste.

A New Years Day look to the future

This blog post marks the end of my holiday break. I have been debating the theme for my first blog of the new year. I have purposely minimized the end-of-year fiscal cliff debate and deal from consideration. There are plenty of commentators on that subject, though I do have some opinions on the bigger picture and the implications that arise from that issue.

What I would like to start out with is an issue that I have touched on before and will continue to in the future. That issue is the impact of humanity on our planet, and how we can change our culture in order to minimize the negative results of that impact.

A long time ago, I remember hearing an environmental concept: “an environmental fight to save something can never be truly won, for threats to its existence will keep coming back; but once the fight is lost, in many cases it is lost forever.” I believe this is generally true. Sure, there are conditions where the loss is somewhat superficial and could be restored to a large extent by the abandonment of the threat and a plan to reclaim the lost condition. But, for the most part, environmental losses are not prone to being reversed, and when reversals are desired and attempted, they are usually very expensive.

2012 being a presidential election year in the United States, we endured a year of debate over policies covering many aspects of national policy. Many of those policy arguments were aimed at what was perceived to be the best interest of people. Sometimes short term best interests, sometimes long term best interest. I question the preeminence of the best interest of people in many policy debates. The reason for that is that I believe the tendency for self interest of the individual or group to trump the wider best interest of all of the people degrades the value of the argument.

There was much interest in Paul Ryan's obsession with Ayn Rand and her belief that if everyone acted in their own self interests the interests of the whole would be best realized. While that obsession was derided and even disavowed by Mr. Ryan himself, the premise was never analyzed to my satisfaction beyond the basic Randian versus Keynesian argument of government taxing and spending.

I would like to look at the greater picture. How does our system function, and how would it best function, to produce the largest long term benefit to humanity. In this context I would like to posit the argument that we should make policy decisions based on the impacts of those decisions on our planet, because I believe that would result in the best outcome for the people. We, as humanity exists today, have become an overwhelming over-consumer of the finite resources of our planet. Continued policy decisions based on the benefits those decisions have for people to enjoy, almost certainly means that the planetary resources will continue to be depleted. People will chose to ignore that fact and applaud that their lives have been enriched by the policy. This is how it generally works today, and that needs to change, because that is a loss for the environment and those losses are generally permanent.

What would be a better paradigm is if decisions were made in the best interest of the planet. Protecting what is left of our environment benefits everyone. We all (meaning all of humanity; past, present, and future) live better lives with abundant clean air and water, where our food supply and food production is safe and sustainable, and where our shelter is also clean, safe, and sustainable. Self interest does not promote these results. Powerful individuals and groups acting in their own self interest consume resources at an unsustainable level, whether they are aware of it or not. Failing to consider the long term results of our self interest will impact future generations in an immensely negative way. How many of us, when we consider our own consumptive decisions, include contemplation of whether or not our great great grandchildren will be able to share that type of consumption, and if not, consider that narcissistic consumption undesirable.

Economic growth is something that is generally believed to be necessary. I have wondered for years what economists think, if they do at all, about the long term future of our planet within the context of economic growth. Do they really think that Gross Domestic Product can grow infinitely?
GDP consists of the value of all goods and services produced. Well those goods and services are also consumed. So we might consider producing a metric for Gross Domestic Consumption. That is one way that might enlighten the consideration of the sustainability of our consumption. Production sounds like such a positive thing. We need to consider consumption, and in doing so include the fact that unsustainable consumption is a decidedly negative thing. As it is now the United States is consuming more than we produce, so that we are depleting the world's resources not just our own. And the larger threat is that we are exporting our consumeristic culture to countries that have the potential to consume at a level that could dwarf our own.

So, we must think of the future. We must cultivate a vision of that future where sustainability is the primary goal, supplanting growth as the stabilizer of the economy. We must see that the good of the planet is the good of the people.