Solutions

Before my recent forays into the religious side of things (I’ll soon post on why that’s been on my mind of late) I had made mention of both my belief in sustainability and my distrust of technological “solutions”. We’ve heard a lot lately about being “green”, from “green” jobs as the answer to our current unemployment problems, to the need for more “green” vehicles from U.S. automakers, to “green” energy production, to the recent cropping up of “Recession Gardens” all over the country. Being “green” is a good thing to do—it’s a good first step for otherwise disconnected people—but, as it is usually presented, it is in no way sustainable and does not represent a lasting solution to either our social or environmental problems.

I’ve recently read about three different “solutions” to various environmental problems. Two are in the vein of “green” technologies; the other entails a simple, practical, low-to-no-cost change in thinking and behavior. I hate to give away anything so early, but let’s have a vote now: which of these three was not covered by mainstream media outlets? Darn, I let the cat out of the bag on that one, didn’t I? OK, how’s about another vote: which will likely gain the least traction in society as a whole? I know, that setup is unfair and cynical…but not wrong.

The first article talks about “artificial trees” that would use a special resin to soak up carbon dioxide. When the resin is rinsed with water it releases its CO2, which can then be separated from the water and stored for later industrial uses such as carbonated drink manufacture or oilwell pressurization. Each of these “trees”, with the use of 32,800 feet of resin, should be capable of capturing about 1 ton of CO2 daily, which is a substantial amount and pretty impressive I might add. Overall, I think this is a pretty cool idea, as it would give an excellent “on demand” emissions-reduction option for significant CO2 polluters like power generation stations. I have some reservations about the effects of producing that much (supposedly “environmentally friendly”) resin, but in a world where nearly everything else is made of plastic, who cares?

The second article discusses the rush toward “green” energy production and its unintended consequences. It seems that mega-scale solar and wind farms in the middle of nowhere and the transmission lines that carry their energy to more populated areas affect wildlife. Imagine that. And why is it that all these utility companies are moving so strongly toward renewable sources? Government-mandated production targets. (Honestly, I don’t mean to sound so cynical. Producing electricity from renewable sources is responsible and good and even the moral thing to do. And perhaps our society is so screwed up and driven by high profits and low prices that the government is forced to step in and mandate the responsible choice, but I don’t think that’s really what’s going on here. More on that later.)

The third article talks about the many benefits of grass-fed beef, but focuses on the benefits to the environment. It seems that the acreage used to finish cows (to fatten them up to marketable weight and characteristics for slaughter) on grass or on grain is, on average, the same. The article argues that if we were to replace the farmland used to grow grain for feedlot finishing with perennial pasture for grass finishing, we could reduce carbon emissions by a net 3000 pounds/acre/year over feedlot finishing on grain. This figure isn’t quite as impressive on its face as that capable by the aforementioned artificial trees, but when we start talking about millions of acres things kinda begin to add up. Also, it requires absolutely no new technological inputs.

Did you figure out which article was which? Just teasing.

Now I’m all for responsible technologies that keep negative human effects on the environment to a minimum; sure, irresponsibly practiced technological “progress” has brought about many of our current problems, but the wise use of technology could reverse the effects of many of our ills. The onus is on us to do just that.

I try to be “green”. I believe strongly in recycling, reusing anything and everything, reducing consumption…all the aims of the sloganeering of the late 1980s/early 1990s. I believe in using alternative fuels for personal vehicles (although I presently do not—my 16-year-old Nissan pickup absolutely HATES ethanol. In cold weather, ethanol blends reduce my mileage by about 35%. Even in warm weather, using a 10% ethanol blend reduces my truck’s average pure-gasoline mileage by about 20%, which means I’m actually increasing my net gasoline consumption by something like 19% by burning an ethanol blend…go figure). I believe in eating foods raised without petrochemical inputs. I believe in eating locally when possible, thus reducing fuel consumption from transportation. I have in the past used compact fluorescent bulbs (although I no longer do since I consider heavy metal toxicity to present a more serious threat to the environment than increased CO2 levels). I don’t do laundry on the “hot” setting. I keep the furnace set just marginally warm enough for comfort. I like all these popular things. I’m even occasionally willing to buy the “EnviroCare” paper products and scour my behind with recycled-stock toilet paper (using a cat’s tongue would be gentler…although much more traumatic…especially for the cat).

However, not one of these practices is truly sustainable. All of them together do not constitute sustainability. Even their combination with all the other pedantic pseudo-moralisms of our Earth Day concert-watching, slogan-chanting, superficially well-intended society cannot fix our problems. Only a radical shift in our thinking and our behavior (and, therefore, in our politics and economics) could do that.

I have a lot more I’d like to say about these articles and this topic, but I’m tired and want to go to bed. Also, I’ve been working on this post sporadically for over a week and I want to post something of it. So consider this Part 1. Tune in later for Part 2. Goodnight.