Now with gasoline at $4.50 a gallon and rising, U.S. citizens are at last recognizing our pressing need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But the most commonly named solutions are questionable, for they will incur costs, both economic and environmental.
Energy is required for fertilizer and machinery to grow plants for ethanol--and dozens of countries are already suffering from food shortages as energy needs compete for arable land. Coal is dangerous to mine and yields greenhouse gases galore. Hydro-electric plants can store energy well--but how many more rivers can we dam? Nuclear power is problematic because it will take 15-20 years to make new plants operable, and we still haven't figured out what to do about the waste--nevermind the potential for new Chenobyls. Wind and solar power are clean and renewable but dependent upon the vagaries of nature, and the energy is difficult to store.
The most cost effective solution by far is one that most Americans don't want to hear: conservation. This solution can be provided at a fraction of the cost of the others. Conservation would mean driving less, using more fuel-efficient cars, providing more and better mass transit, more energy-efficient homes and offices and manufacturing processes.
When I was studying in Berkeley 20 years ago, a visitor from Kentucky and I passed by a dumpster on which some glaring graffiti read: "Recycle or Die!" My friend said, "People out here are a little intense, aren't they?" The statement is not so radical today--it's becoming mainstream. Unless we can grasp the concept that "less is more," we may find that our very survival will be at stake.
Share this
Leave a comment