How many times, in how many ways, and with how many examples do we need to say it? The focus on any green agenda should not be carbon reductions or global warming or – dare I say it – saving the planet. The planet will be fine. We may not be, but the earth will keep spinning and various forms of life will survive despite what happens to us. Let’s talk about something we all feel more acutely and more directly than a 1 degree rise in average global temperatures – money.
With most of the developed world mired in a debt swamp of their own making, the impetus to focus on the cost savings of going green should be first and foremost in any debate. As a recent NY Times piece points out without really saying it (again, the focus being on “global warming” and costs of green policy not the cost savings of such policy), the United Kingdom is considering pulling back on some of its carbon cutting agenda. They cite not being able to afford it as a main reason. This is short-sighted. In the story, officials comment that they can’t afford to undertake the measures to cut carbon because they are presumably too expensive. Long term expenses due to climate change would likely be greater than any upfront cost but these are rarely considered. There is of course focus on helping the economy in the short term, and one strategy here is to reduce expenses through energy conservation measures and upgrading equipment.
The phrase “global warming” is problematic in the first place. It fails to capture what is happening. Yes, the overall average global temperature is rising but “global warming” invites ridicule when events such as the Washington DC blizzard of 2010 erase all signs of “warming” from the minds of the people who are experiencing the extreme event on a local scale. It’s global warming, not localized warming and cooling. We simply fail to see the global aspect, through our limited daily interactions on a smaller scale in a local area. Climate change is more accurate as the effects of 7 billion fossil fuel consuming humans causing erratic and more extreme weather and climate variations experienced on the local scale, not simply warming across the planet. That said, there is so much confusion, political bickering, and various types of misinformation that come with a “carbon cutting” or “stopping climate change” agenda that progress is often frustratingly slow, or nearly non-existent. It’s more effective to talk of the tangible cost savings that result from implementing energy efficiency measures, cutting energy use, and even subsidizing new technologies that, when mature, will provide more abundant energy at cheaper costs and – here’s the kicker - even do it in an environmentally friendly way.
Focus on the savings that can be had through green policy measures, like those announced the other day in the US. By doing so – and keeping an eye on the long term – we can slowly crawl out of debt, lay the foundation for a new energy paradigm, AND pursue an environmental agenda that will cut emissions and curtail global warming – all without saying it.
[Image]
