> > > <wry> Time to up the ante? I also: > - shower only on days I'll be in public (that might be > daily in summer, but only 3 days/week in winter) > - wash only large loads of laundry, mostly in cold, > occ. in warm, but never hot water > - run my dishwasher < once/week, fully loaded only > - combine driving trips, ie grocery/bank/library/etc. > (which is why I haven't been posting as often; in > winter weeks I may drive on 3 days, although in > summer it's as much as 6 or 7) > - turn off all lights except in the room I'm using > - reuse various containers (like plastic water > bottles) until they're worn out > - recycle what I can (paper, aluminum, etc) > - use ~ 2 styrofoam cups/year (when traveling) > - use passive solar heat in winter when able (when the > sun is shining, thermal blinds are open, when it > isn't, they're closed) > - use a bucket/pitcher to save water while waiting for > it to get warm (goes to flush toilet or water > plants) > - etc, etc > I really do try to think about what I'm doing WRT > energy consumption; I'll bet that if everyone did the > same or more (and there are those who make me look > like a glutton!), it *would* make a significant > impact.
Significant as in slowing down the rate of increase in greenhouse gasses, probably. But I don't think that it's as straightforward as it might appear to be on the surface. The costs/repercussions inherent in people cutting down energy use is not clear when we just look at one person doing it...isolated from everyone else. I think it would be worthwhile to analyze what we are discussing in terms of what choices will tend to be made as the price of energy rises, and the repercussions of these choices. You might want to argue against using tax/price as the means for cutting energy usage. I think that it has been shown to have two tremendous advantages over other means: such as laws requiring the reduction of energy usage and moral appeals. Let me give a quick explanation of why I favor increasing the price. I will do this by looking at the problems with the other analysis. Doing it by legal restrictions has two significant problems: 1) Even the best informed and intentioned committee cannot find optimum tradeoffs in millions of different cases. Millions of decisions based on the true cost of energy will result in more efficient use of energy. 2) Loopholes are always found. The popularity of the Suburban turning into the SUV craze is an example of this. It was exempt from the mileage requirements for cars because it was a truck...as are SUVs. Closing all such loopholes would require very complicated legislation, which would also apply in unforeseen ways....often working against conservation. Moral appeals can be a component of the action, but nothing real can be based on "what if everyone did the right thing." For example, we cannot fund schools, highways, and Medicare by free will offerings. The tax plan does have problems...One obvious problem with an energy tax is that it is regressive. The regressive nature can be countered by taxes/government payments to lower. There is a cost to this, maybe a 10% surcharge on the cost of the entire program. But, this cost will be far smaller than the cost of the vast bureaucracy generated by regulating energy use while keeping energy inexpensive and, even more so, the generation of a useless industry of finding loopholes in the law. Having set this up, let's think of the cut that would be required to stop global warming. Elsewhere you suggested boycotting China until they have a more environmentally friendly policy. If I were Chinese, I'd counter that this is an unreasonable and hypocritical action for the West, since their per capita carbon emission is less than that of any Western country. It's less than half of that of the UK, and less than 20% of the US. The numbers that I've seen is that the US and Europe, and other developed countries have to drop to, essentially, the per capita carbon consumption of China...and China and India, etc. have to hold their consumption at or below that level. I'll stop here for now, I'm not sure if anyone is interesting in replying. But, if there interest, I think I could argue that even Debbie's lifestyle would be all but impossible in a no global warming world. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
