[Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby

[David Morelli]

On Jan 23, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Since our government officials have to win elections, they tend to  
> do what the voters tell 'em to do. Long-range energy assessment and  
> planning is on the list, but it's so far down you have to study the  
> footnotes.
> ...
> I agree that we must have government willing to address the issue,  
> and that government has, at best, paid lip-service to it so far.  
> But I submit that's because we voters are too easily stampeded by  
> our fears and frustrations.
> ...
> I could get behind a lot of ideas if I could see how they were a  
> part of a sustainable energy program for the USA that provided for  
> our needs, future growth, and which didn't depend upon literally  
> stealing resources from other nations.


There are a number of things that can be done both locally and  
nationally.  But, all will generate opposition from those with a  
financial interest in maintaining the status quo.  For example,  
around three decades ago there was a movement to preserve our land  
and water, which got a lot of heat from the polluters.  One outcome  
of that preservation movement was Senate Bill 100 and its  
descendants.  Our land use system.  When you look at the principles  
of the land development system, you immediately notice that it pushes  
a lot of people into a small space while leaving vast tracts of land  
with very low population density.  I invite you to consider the  
energy consequences of that pattern relative to the consumption in a  
sprawl.

Mass transit is more practical in areas of dense population than  
areas with dispersed population.  That has an energy consequence.   
Building mass transit systems that haul twenty to one hundred people  
per vehicle rather than freeways that haul single occupant vehicles  
has an energy consequence.  Placing housing close together so that  
they share a common wall has an energy consequence.  Living in  
condominiums rather than single family housing has an energy  
consequence.  Mandating pollution controls on industry so that it can  
be sited near population centers to reduce the drive to work has an  
energy consequence.  While those energy consequences may be  
beneficial, they are also subject to opposition.

Let us face reality, there is a strong, voting part of our society  
that would rather commute in a single occupant SUV from a detached  
single family house out in a rural area via a six lane freeway to a  
sprawling industrial park with closed window, air conditioned offices  
somewhere on the far side of everywhere.  And that vision of  
perfection has an energy consequence.

There is a strong preference to have meat at every meal, convenient  
single serving packaging, "super sized" portions, and prepackaged  
highly processed foods for the home prepared meals.  We also expect  
fresh fruits and vegetable to be available out of season.  That has  
energy consequences.

There is a strong  bias toward centralized big businesses who fly  
their people around the country, rather than local companies using  
local people who live in the city they serve.  That has energy  
consequences.

We have a huge appetite for bigger appliances and more of them.  We  
are geared to living 24 hour days with lighting that removes all  
darkness.  Heating and air conditioning two thousand square foot  
homes that serve three or four people.  That has energy consequences.

We can work to get our transportation, food, housing, leisure, and  
employment in line with sustainable energy consumption, or we can  
deal with the dislocations that will occur when those factors of our  
lives are forced to drop to sustainable levels.  That runs counter to  
the consumer society and the "growth is good" economic theory.

I do not see any unsolvable reason why we cannot all have a  
comfortable standard of living with a lower per capita level of  
energy consumption.   It is called "efficiency".

David