We're in the middle of a drought here in Southern California. Again. (I've read recently that, judging from geological records, we may not actually be in a drought… it's more like this is what the climate in this region is normally like, and we've just been experiencing wetter weather than is the norm for the past century or two.) Whatever the case, it's been pretty dry. The Metropolitan Water District has kicked into full "Conservation is key" mode and you can't escape their "be water wise" ads on the radio.
This is all very familiar, as we experienced very similar conditions just a few years ago. We were living in LA at the time and I remember virtually identical commercials, urging everyone to take shorter showers, water less, etc., etc., etc.
And, apparently, we all listened and the campaign was quite successful. I assume this because, about six months later, LADWP applied to the California PUC for a rate increase. (Man, you gotta love all those acronyms.) Apparently, we were doing SUCH a great job conserving, that they could no longer generate enough cash to keep the department running.
So you'll just have to forgive me for thinking, as I turn off the sprinklers one extra day a week, and get that flow-restricting European shower head installed, just how much can I afford to conserve?
This is all very familiar, as we experienced very similar conditions just a few years ago. We were living in LA at the time and I remember virtually identical commercials, urging everyone to take shorter showers, water less, etc., etc., etc.
And, apparently, we all listened and the campaign was quite successful. I assume this because, about six months later, LADWP applied to the California PUC for a rate increase. (Man, you gotta love all those acronyms.) Apparently, we were doing SUCH a great job conserving, that they could no longer generate enough cash to keep the department running.
So you'll just have to forgive me for thinking, as I turn off the sprinklers one extra day a week, and get that flow-restricting European shower head installed, just how much can I afford to conserve?
Comments
This is the big question, isn't it?
We all need to conserve, recycle, pollute less, etc. We are an ecological conscious society (despite what propaganda you hear). America does, indeed, do it's part. Meanwhile, India and China, and Russia are polluting the shit out of the world.
But, how FAR do you go in your ecological consciousness? Do you drive at 55 all the time? Is that even realistic? Do you shell out the bucks for that European shower head (and, come on, does it REALLY help?)? Do you trade in your car and buy that Prius? I did a cost-benefit analysis on the Prius. I technically save more money over a 5 year period by buying my Hyundai Sonata. Which is why I bought it.
Which brings me to Al Gore's pet project - the Kyoto Protocols. There are models out there showing that the cost to abide for American business is HUGE. And, the payoff is little. It's non-existant if Russia, China, and India don't abide by the same protocols (and, they aren't going to). Arnie wants to cut California emissions by another 20% or something. Noble. But, all the models I'm seeing suggest this will drive the final stake into any manufacturing capability the state has and we'll go further into the hole than we already are.
Ecological warriors of the world, I implore you to look at the big picture! The Earth is our friend...but, we also need to eat and live in our houses. Quit living in your bubble and look at the math.
Then, let's start looking for oil in ANWR.
I do try to conserve, and actually did try the European shower head last time around. (And no, I doubt they help.) I recycle, we've cut back on watering the yard, Dani and I carpool to work almost every day, things like that. But I'm not sold on hybrids, for reasons similar to yours, and we run the AC when the weather starts hitting triple digits. (Hell, who am I kidding… 90 degrees is enough to send me to the thermostat.)
Last month's cover feature in Wired argued that, if your focus is to reduce carbon emissions, then screw ecology, to hell with the hybrids and let's all live in big cities (Reductively stated, of course). The arguments they made were interesting, especially their argument on hybrids (as they argued that the cost associated with hybrid batteries far outweighed the carbon cost of something like your Hyundai). I think they were, to some extent, playing devil's advocate, especially considering the counterpoint column they ran at the end of their feature (which basically argued that it's not that simple).
Which is really what it's all about. It's NOT that simple. The more I read about Kyoto, the more I see that it's not a good solution. And the argument that it's better than doing nothing, to your point about the economic cost, doesn't wash. But to say that it's no good, so we're not going to do anything shouldn't be a viable alternative either. We must find ways to conserve, cut carbon, reduce emissions, etc., and it's going to have to be a global effort. Problem is, as you also observe, Russia, China and India aren't particularly interested in playing.
So maybe we're all doomed. SF writers have been predicting it for more than 50 years — first from nuclear fallout, then from ecological disaster (when we're not being dominated by alien races, of course.) We seem to have dodged the nuclear scenario, for now. Maybe the ecological one will be our ultimate fate.