Ecosystem Debt is Too Hot to Handle
I saw Stephen Lewis speak and David Suzuki speak, and they both highly recommended the same book: Heat, by George Monbiot. So I read it, and it's changed how I look at the solution to climate change. As I carried it around for a few weeks, I had a similar exchange with people everywhere:
"That's a great book, eh!"
"Oh, you've read it?"
"Well, bits of it. But it's amazing."
It is amazing, and I believe most people will only read bits of it because it's a too dense and hard-slogging for the general populace. So I endeavoured to make the basic premise more accessible. I called my local paper to send in an article, and the second opinion editor seemed delighted with the concept, so I whittled my ideas down to a mere 750 words. He's accepted my articles before without a glitch, so I thought this one was a shoe-in. But then he never called back.
Jerk.
Good thing for blogs - the place the unpublishable can freely publish!
So here's Heat in a teeny tiny nutshell. Now you can talk about the book as if you've sort of read it too!
***
An enlightening TV show, Til Debt Do Us Part illustrates a no-nonsense approach to rescuing people who have made serious financial mistakes. The couples on the show spend excessively, deferring the punishment of their actions until credit runs out. They can’t seem to stay within a budget, typically because they didn’t start with a budget. Instead, access to a lot of credit gave them the illusion that they’d never run out of money. But credit isn’t the same as cash. And they’re in big trouble.
People are finally recognizing that climate change is real, that we caused it, and that we’re all in big trouble. The problem is similar. We’re using natural resources as if there’s no tomorrow. It’s time to face the music and start living within our means. As explained in George Monbiot’s book Heat, this implies creating a worldwide budget for fossil fuel consumption.
In the reality TV show, host Gail Vaz-Oxlade figures out what each couple can afford to spend, then has them living on cash only. What they have in front of them is all they get to use each month. Monbiot suggests a similar system of distributed carbon units or “icecaps.”
If we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need to determine the maximum amount the world can tolerate each year, then divvy it out per person. Governments will keep some of their population’s icecaps for social uses (food transportation, etc.), then individuals will use their personal icecaps when buying fuel and electricity.
Since every person worldwide will be granted equal funds, needier nations like Canada could pay countries with smaller footprints for unused carbon units. The rich will still be able to do more than the poor, but, unlike a carbon tax, nobody is made to pay extra for basic necessities.
Telling Canadians to reduce our load on the environment by one tonne each is like telling us to cut our spending collectively. Of course we try when we think of it, when it’s convenient, and when there’s nothing irresistible right in front of us. But we tend to hope the sterling lives of some others will counteract our negligence. Unless we’re unable to shop or use fuel because we’re personally out of cash or icecaps, nothing will change.
We all need a stern woman to come into our homes and show us what’s what! Once we figure out what we can spend, then if we get to zero before the end of the month, we’ll just have to give up the computer, washing in hot water, driving to work alone, or some other luxury that we simply can’t afford – that the world can’t afford. Like the experience of one set of debt exhibitionists who had to give up a vacation because it wasn’t in their real world budget, it’s disappointing, but it’s necessary. It’s time to be grown-ups about how we live.
Alternatively, if a savvy homeowner is able to reduce electricity use to zero, and walk everywhere, she might end up with enough icecaps left for a plane ride at the end of the year. Now with Smart Meters coming to town (by 2010 at the latest), it’s possible to get to zero,…but not by doing laundry at midnight.*
Solar panels can be hooked up to these clever meters to make them run backwards when there’s more energy created than used by the household. At peak times, Ontario will charge consumers 9.7 cents/kWh. But any extra solar electricity generated can be sold back to Hydro One at 42 cents/kWh. And the Ontario government is also offering a RST rebate to solar panel consumers until the end of 2007.
Kyoto requires a mere 6% reduction in carbon emissions. Monbiot suggests we actually need a 90% reduction to save our ecosystem. And he believes this is possible even though since Kyoto was first put on the table Canada’s emissions increased by 24%. But telling us how bad it will be in future, and asking nicely aren’t the answers. We will stop consuming so much fossil fuel when we get to the end of an imposed personal monthly budget or when we completely run out of oil. Which is the preferable system?
We’ve been spending way beyond our means because we can, because the effects are too far away to motivate us towards any real change. If we are each rationed out a specific amount of fuel for personal use, we will change how we live. We’ll have no other choice.
*A local columnist recently made fun of the move towards installing smart meters that charge a prefered rate at low-use times, insisting they won't change anything because who's really going to do laundry at midnight.
***
Views?
"That's a great book, eh!"
"Oh, you've read it?"
"Well, bits of it. But it's amazing."
It is amazing, and I believe most people will only read bits of it because it's a too dense and hard-slogging for the general populace. So I endeavoured to make the basic premise more accessible. I called my local paper to send in an article, and the second opinion editor seemed delighted with the concept, so I whittled my ideas down to a mere 750 words. He's accepted my articles before without a glitch, so I thought this one was a shoe-in. But then he never called back.
Jerk.
Good thing for blogs - the place the unpublishable can freely publish!
So here's Heat in a teeny tiny nutshell. Now you can talk about the book as if you've sort of read it too!
***
An enlightening TV show, Til Debt Do Us Part illustrates a no-nonsense approach to rescuing people who have made serious financial mistakes. The couples on the show spend excessively, deferring the punishment of their actions until credit runs out. They can’t seem to stay within a budget, typically because they didn’t start with a budget. Instead, access to a lot of credit gave them the illusion that they’d never run out of money. But credit isn’t the same as cash. And they’re in big trouble.
People are finally recognizing that climate change is real, that we caused it, and that we’re all in big trouble. The problem is similar. We’re using natural resources as if there’s no tomorrow. It’s time to face the music and start living within our means. As explained in George Monbiot’s book Heat, this implies creating a worldwide budget for fossil fuel consumption.
In the reality TV show, host Gail Vaz-Oxlade figures out what each couple can afford to spend, then has them living on cash only. What they have in front of them is all they get to use each month. Monbiot suggests a similar system of distributed carbon units or “icecaps.”
If we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need to determine the maximum amount the world can tolerate each year, then divvy it out per person. Governments will keep some of their population’s icecaps for social uses (food transportation, etc.), then individuals will use their personal icecaps when buying fuel and electricity.
Since every person worldwide will be granted equal funds, needier nations like Canada could pay countries with smaller footprints for unused carbon units. The rich will still be able to do more than the poor, but, unlike a carbon tax, nobody is made to pay extra for basic necessities.
Telling Canadians to reduce our load on the environment by one tonne each is like telling us to cut our spending collectively. Of course we try when we think of it, when it’s convenient, and when there’s nothing irresistible right in front of us. But we tend to hope the sterling lives of some others will counteract our negligence. Unless we’re unable to shop or use fuel because we’re personally out of cash or icecaps, nothing will change.
We all need a stern woman to come into our homes and show us what’s what! Once we figure out what we can spend, then if we get to zero before the end of the month, we’ll just have to give up the computer, washing in hot water, driving to work alone, or some other luxury that we simply can’t afford – that the world can’t afford. Like the experience of one set of debt exhibitionists who had to give up a vacation because it wasn’t in their real world budget, it’s disappointing, but it’s necessary. It’s time to be grown-ups about how we live.
Alternatively, if a savvy homeowner is able to reduce electricity use to zero, and walk everywhere, she might end up with enough icecaps left for a plane ride at the end of the year. Now with Smart Meters coming to town (by 2010 at the latest), it’s possible to get to zero,…but not by doing laundry at midnight.*
Solar panels can be hooked up to these clever meters to make them run backwards when there’s more energy created than used by the household. At peak times, Ontario will charge consumers 9.7 cents/kWh. But any extra solar electricity generated can be sold back to Hydro One at 42 cents/kWh. And the Ontario government is also offering a RST rebate to solar panel consumers until the end of 2007.
Kyoto requires a mere 6% reduction in carbon emissions. Monbiot suggests we actually need a 90% reduction to save our ecosystem. And he believes this is possible even though since Kyoto was first put on the table Canada’s emissions increased by 24%. But telling us how bad it will be in future, and asking nicely aren’t the answers. We will stop consuming so much fossil fuel when we get to the end of an imposed personal monthly budget or when we completely run out of oil. Which is the preferable system?
We’ve been spending way beyond our means because we can, because the effects are too far away to motivate us towards any real change. If we are each rationed out a specific amount of fuel for personal use, we will change how we live. We’ll have no other choice.
*A local columnist recently made fun of the move towards installing smart meters that charge a prefered rate at low-use times, insisting they won't change anything because who's really going to do laundry at midnight.
***
Views?
posted by Sage at 1:43 AM
7 Comments:
Hey. I'm here. :)
I'll preface by saying that I haven't done lots of reading on the subject, but I did make it through The Long Emergency...
So with the "icecap" units: You suggested that needier (fuel-wise) countries could buy excess units from less needy countries. I wonder how it would be possible to prevent impoverished countries and/or countries under a harsh dictator from, say, having their grid shut down by the government in order to save units... to sell. Who would see the profits from that? Not the people who needed their power supply. I think we would both agree that that's wrong, but:
1: Is it possible to prevent?
2: Is it even our business to prevent it?
Your idea is interesting. Maybe a Global Energy Council could oversee the amounts sold, and even have the power to investigate living conditions if it seems to be out of line with the amount their people would realistically need.
Then again, countries that are corrupt would probably find a way around it.
Hell, I just argued myself into a corner. Enjoy. :)
Sage,
remember when Margaret Thatcher went to a supermarket to explain to the British public that you can't buy tons of stuff when you're out of money? Fun, possibly effective (that was 1982, I think) but only partly right...
The problem with sustainable development is the availability of information about the future, and the most fundamental question of the time frame for which the optimization is supposed to be sustainable.
There can be no doubt about the need to cut carbon dioxid emissions dramatically. Actually bringing North America's consumption down to the level of the rest of "the West" would already take care of the biggest part of what's needed. But, alas, as you mention in your last paragraph:
We’ve been spending way beyond our means because we can, because the effects are too far away to motivate us towards any real change. If we are each rationed out a specific amount of fuel for personal use, we will change how we live. We’ll have no other choice.
You still can. It's that simple. You should not, as a society, because of inondations in Bangladesh and possible disasters at home in a couple of decades. But this is a simple collective action problem - the consequences are still too far away, regardless of the possibly changing discourse and the Oscar that went to Al Gore. I mean, he wrote that book in the first year in office, that was even before he invented the internet ;) - and he certainly wasn't the first to look at climate statistics.
So, here's what I think. If change is to happen before the disasters hit too close to home, it will have to be done without too radical changes to anyone's lifestyle (although it should not be as ridiculous as President Bush's 140m green energy investment programme last year - 140m, that's what he spends on a day in Iraq, just to put the amount in relation to the challenge)
Fuel efficiency increases, great - but you only buy a car every couple of years, and, say, houses much more rarely. So rolling out energy saving measures will take *a lot* of time. And political support will drop quickly if the measures are too radical - it's a simple intertemporal investment equation: What's the perceived utility of consuming today (including the possible mental cost of ignoring moral imperatives) versus investing in a better world/less costs tomorrow? People are having less kids in the industrialised countries, so the "save the world for my kids" induced collective temporal optimization time frame is growing shorter these days.
So, that's why some kind of global emission rights market will never really take off, apart from the institutional flaws it would undoubtedly have. Auction design is one of the most dangerous areas in economics...
But, apart from that, and to end on a more positive note, there is serious change going on - environmentally friendly energy is a boom market now. Just look at the performance of solar power and wind power shares in Europe. These days, even ambitious MBA regard green energy companies as a safe bet for their careers. And the Exxon's and Shell's of this world are hedging their bets. Weak signal, for sure.
But I think it is for real...
Unfortunately, I'm a person who doesn't know a lot about this subject, but what I have observed is that the kinds of energy consumption changes that need to be made are often expensive and/or nearly impossible to make.
I'd love to have solar power for my house and all the energy efficient devices available. Too expensive to purchase and install. I'd love to have a hybrid car. Too expensive and I don't need a new car. I'd love to walk or ride a bike to work. Too dangerous/far on a road with no shoulder and speeding drivers, and no public transportation available.
I acknowledge changes needs to happen, but personally, I'm sick of government officials, scientists, et al, standing on their pedestals and pointing fingers at the rest of us. "Stop using so much electricity, drive less!" Thanks for the info, but it's easier said than done.
I recycle, reuse, keep the thermostat low (uncomfortably at times) during the winter and rarely use the air conditioner in the summer. Beyond that things start to feel overwhelming.
A small potentially positive note that may not cheer anyone up, but made me feel a little reassured in an odd sort of way...
My father works for Exxon. He's somewhat of a higher-up and is privy to info not given to the general public. He says that their biggest area of new development and investment is alternative energy sources. They're particularly interested in geothermal energy and have been sinking a great deal of money into R&D. That and that tar sands project in Canada are their highest priority projects according to him. Conventional oil is already on it's way to being written off as an income source.
And this is EXXON, the baddest of the baddies, the great corporate villain. In the end it may be the megacorporations that force the change once they see their revenue streams drying up, because those guys are projecting far into the future and they know the current model isn't sustainable.
I would love to see government-imposed limits for everyone, both citizen and corporate, BUT I don't think that's likely to happen until we hit the actual crisis point (major tsunami hits LA or San Francisco instead of Indonesia, say).
But as for the tipping point...like I said, my Dad's an Exxon exec, and according to him that point has already been passed and everyone in the industry knows it, regardless of what they tell the public.
I too carried Heat around with me everywhere once I had the chance to read it (and probably annoyed some friends by talking about it all the time). I live in the US so not too many people pretended to have read it as it is only being published here this month.
Anyway, while I think comparing Monbiot's proposal for carbon rationing to a common budget that we have to live by does bring it to a more understandable level it misses what I found to be so important in the book. It's not too late!
What really got me (aside from the urgency) is that he looked at a broad range of issues we feel are essential to modern life (transport, food, electricity,...) and said "Okay, if I'm going to convince people that it's worth trying to prevent a climate catastrophe I need to figure out a way to do it where we can still enjoy 'civilized society.'"
And then Heat goes and does it. It's not a given, but it's a possibility and now we've got a game plan.
I have yet to read heat, but i will. ... A note before i comment on the post - I saw david suzuki speak three times... ... It was pretty disappointing, basically, i've found, if you've read his book The Sacred Balance - you've heard all he has to say.
In regards to climate change and waking up - when do you wake up to the fact that you're in trouble with money? when do women finally realize that they're with an abuser? when do alcoholics finally realize they need help? ... When they've dug themselves so deep that they're barely able to get themselves out without help. The problem here is that we won't have held. We've have people telling us for centuries that we're in trouble and that as a collective we need to start using less resources and start paying attention to the detrimental effects that our life styles have on the earth - but the majority of poeple aren't going to wake up to that until its a "too late" situation.
I've found that even people who have recognized that we're in trouble aren't doing anything to help the environment... My one roommate still drives to school every single day (its about a 15 minute walk...) and the other consumes like mad... she feels the need to have new clothes in her closet once a week. ... So if the people that know there is a problem aren't doing anything either - I feel there is little hope.
I will read heat and let you know my thoughts on it Sage. But for now I just hold onto the idea that the earth has gone through a lot in the past - so I'm sure it can handle us humans and rebound as if nothing had happened in a million years or so.
cj - Yup someone can always find a way to corrupt any system. But with this method, if you think of the countries that don't even have a grid system, they can cash in. Actually, they'll have to cash in so we can live somewhat like we're used to.
The problem comes when those countries get enough money together to start wanting to get into fuel purchasing, then there'll be one less place for wealthy oil-dependent countries to get icecaps from. (Unless, similar to what you suggest, WE make them stay off the grid.)
Tobias - Sure there's lots of change going on - but in Caanda we're using more oil instead of less. My neighbours call themselves environmentalists, but several just got central air conditioning (it might get slightly over 30 for a week or two in the summer - ee gads!). I think until it's manditory somehow, people won't change enough to actually decrease overall consumption. I think the idea of everyone having a set amount of icecaps to use as they see fit each month is the best idea I've come across so far.
Olivia, Monbiot's system won't stop poverty, but, at the very least, people with less won't end up choosing between heat or food like they might if oil was more heavily taxed. They'll get the same ration of oil as anyone else, and might be able to make money funding the heating of some rich guy's pool heater.
There's also call for a decrease in gov. subsidies of fossil fuels, and a substancial increase in subsidies of solar and wind.
Cassandra - thanks for the insider information!
m. semterra - I was really pleased with the hopeful tone of the book. I think without it, I would have just put it back down.
Katie - I agree that generally we won't do anything until we hit rock bottom. That's why governments have to force us into a budgetting situation by only allowing us access to so much (per person) each month. But... the gov. are people too and maybe they won't act until they hit rock bottom. This is where the handful of Monbiot followers come in.
Ya, more letters to write.
Here we're likely going to have an election soonish, so we can follow around politicians in person talking their ears off, asking if they're going to make their country smarten up!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home