A few days ago, I was grabbing some lunch in Harvard Square and I was asked by a petitioner if I wanted to “save the environment”. I stopped and said that in fact I do (this is actually true, I do think that saving the environment is a good thing), but proceeded to not take any of their claims at face value. In short, this group wants people to donate to pay lobbyists whom will presumably argue on behalf of a bill which will cut carbon emissions 20% by the year 2020. This is a noble goal, but being somewhat of a smartass I decided to question them. Here’s a brief rundown (of course, creating a strawman whereby I sound like a genius and my opponent sounds like a nincumpoop):
Q: How much carbon does a 20% reduction represent?
A: I don’t know, but 20% will save the environment!
Q: What exactly will this bill do?
A: It will cut carbon emissions by 20%.
Q: No, I understand that, but how exactly? Do you force utilities to stop producing power? Are there demand side restrictions? Do you mandate renewable resources be used?
A: I don’t know exactly, but every little bit will help.
Q: Uh, okay. So what renewable resources are we talking? Solar doesn’t really help much up in Boston, nor does Geothermal…Are you talking wind turbines? In which case, people on the coast don’t want them…
A: Yeah, I know. That’s gonna be tough.
Q: Does your bill provide incentives to utilities to engage in Energy Efficiency?
A: I don’t really know. You can check our website to see.
At this point, I thanked the petitioner and went on my way. Through my questioning I realized what a religion the “green movement” has become. This person had no idea what the solution to any of our Carbon problems really were. In fact, this person didn’t even have a grasp on what the nature of the problem really was other than the fact that global warming emissions are bad. My only real question becomes, why are you working for something you don’t have any idea about? Through my two years as an economic consultant, I’ve modeled Wind Turbine farms, I’ve studied the financial effects of demand-side energy efficiency programs, and I’ve gotten a decent feel of the utility industry as a whole. While I’m no expert, I do know that solving this problem is going to be a hell of a lot harder than paying a lobbyist to help pass a bill with no implementable mechanics, no enforcement, and no money. We need massive government and private equity investment in renewables, we need to give utilities decoupling in order to encourage energy efficiency, and we need individuals to start being more conscious about our energy consumption (I, for one, am terrible when it comes to turning off my computer when I’m not using it, as well as various other appliances).
I’ll sign a petition when one of these groups tries to pass a bill that actually does something and allocates X million dollars to renewables research, or wants to allocate funds to create a Smart Grid. Then again, maybe this petition will really work by educating individuals about their own impact on the environment.
Lastly, this is going to cost lots of money, and individuals are going to need to pony up either in terms of electricity/gas bills or in more taxes. Sadly, I’m pretty sure in times of economic uncertainty and rising fuel costs/inflation, consumers are going to choose their pocketbook and try to pass these costs on in a way that isn’t feasible. Besides, the budget is already taxed to the max, with Deval Patrick’s hope’s for more money resting on building casinos…something might have to give.
Anyways, if you think you’d like to support their cause, please visit www.environmentmassachusetts.org
Fun Carbon Fact: the amount of heat released by carbon over its entire lifespan is equal to 200 times the original heat created when the carbon was produced.
